Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Garden Festival Wales

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Garden Festival Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The national garden festival was an extremely successful event and, despite the adverse weather from July onwards, it succeeded in attracting more than 2 million visitors.

Mr. Bruce: In congratulating the Welsh Office on its role in promoting the garden festival, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there was a greater benefit to the economy in general, not only through visitors and tourists, but in expanding the economy and demonstrating that the Government are wholly committed to regenerating jobs in south Wales?

Mr. Jones: On behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations, which are very much due to Philip Weekes and everyone else who worked with and for Garden Festival Wales Ltd. They did an exceptional job,

as did the local authorities—Blaenau Gwent borough council and Gwent county council. I remember that thousands of people attended on the last day and everyone who went to see the garden festival came away impressed by what can be done in reclamation and by the positive images of Wales that it presented.

Mr. Llew Smith: While I accept all the remarks about the people who made such an outstanding contribution to the garden festival, and while the Government helped to finance the festival and to bring about those good works, on the other hand the Government have brought about a situation in which basic credit approvals for Blaenau Gwent have been slashed by more than £600,000. Environmental schemes in other parts of the constituency will have to be slashed, so the good work done through the garden festival is being outweighed by bad works in other parts of the borough. Will the Minister meet the local authorities to discuss the fact that the basic credit approvals for Blaenau Gwent are the lowest for any district council in Wales?

Mr. Jones: I am certainly not so pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman. I seem to recollect that the Government provided more than £30 million in support for the garden festival. That was a substantial and worthwhile investment for the local authority to build on. I know that Blaenau Gwent borough council and Gwent county council have formed a partnership with the Welsh Development Agency—the Victoria partnership—which has some interesting plans to take that forward. I look forward to developing the end use of the site.

Capital Programme

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be in a position to announce the capital programme for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I am pleased to announce that in 1993–94 the planned gross capital expenditure in respect of my Department's


programmes will total approximately £1,500 million for the first time ever. With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall arrange for details to be printed in the Official Report.

The information is as follows:

1. Planned gross capital expenditure for 1993–94 in respect of all programmes within my responsibility totals some £1.5 billion.
2. The expenditure plans of my Department, including those public expenditure programmes with capital components, will be set out in the Departmental Report to be published in February.
3. The provision of £1.5 billion covers a range of Welsh Office capital programmes.

The main components are:

£ million


(i) Local authority gross capital expenditure
620


(ii) Central government roads and transport
180


(iii) Central government health (including NHS Trusts)
138


(iv) Housing for Wales
130


(v) Welsh Development Agency
124


(vi) ERDF grants
70

4. Lists of major projects included in the programmes are as follows.


Major capital projects in progress include:



Estimated Total Spend £ million>


Central Government Roads



A55 Pen-y-Clip Tunnels
121


M4 Earlwood—Lonlas
59


M4 Briton Ferry—Earlwood
60


A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass
14


M4/A4042 Brynglas Tunnels/Malpas Road
69


A483 Welshpool RR
16


M4 Baglan—Briton Ferry
37


A55 Aber
11


A465 Glynneath—Aberdulais
84


M4 Link to 2nd Severn Crossing
53


Transport Grant Schemes



A472 Maesyowmner—Newbridge
36


Talbot Green Bypass Extension
11


Pontypridd Inner relief road
35


Butetown Link
132


Hospitals



Ysbyty Maelor, Wrexham
20


Ysbyty Gwynedd II
9


Morriston IV
33


Torfaen Community
6


Arts and Libraries



Museum development of Cathays Park building
21


WDA Land Reclamation Schemes



Bargoed Colliery and Tips
11


Oakdale Colliery and Tips
8


Pentre Colliery Tips
5


Phurnacite Works, Abercwmboi
3


Georgetown Cyfarthfa Tips
3

Major capital projects planned to commence in 1993–94 include:



Estimated Total Spend £ million


Arts and Libraries



Provision of third library building
11


Central Government Roads



A4042 Llantarnam By-Pass
18


A5 Glyn Bends
11


A470 Pentrebach-Cefn Coed
58


A483 Llandeilo Eastern By-Pass
18


Transport Grant Schemes



A4048 Tredegar By-Pass
9


A4067 Swansea Valley Dualling Stage 1
16


Hospitals



Singleton Theatre/SDU Development
9


West Mon Community
7


Barry Neighbourhood
8


Cardiff Neighbourhood
7


Other Environmental Services



Cardiff Bay Barrage (subject to Parliamentary approval)
147


WDA Land Reclamation Schemes



Maerdy Colliery Tips Phase 2
2


Brymbo Steelworks
10


Barry Marine
13

Mr. Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that represents an 8.5 per cent. increase in spending in the last year? Will not those record figures accelerate the transformation of the Welsh economy that we have seen in the past 13 years, particularly in view of the new industrial projects which I understand are to be announced today?

Mr. Hunt: I am, indeed, pleased to confirm that seven new industrial projects, involving investment by companies of more than £13 million, the planned creation of 614 new jobs and the safeguarding of more than 260 others are being announced today. That is very good news for Wales and, in particular, for the county of Clwyd. As well as the projects in 1992, my Department has been able to give regional selective assistance to help to create a total of 12,690 jobs in Wales.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that we need a garden festival every week in Wales to recover from the industrial dereliction of the past? The present programme of capital funding is by no means adequate to deal with the problems in the south Wales valleys. When will he give special treatment to the valleys so that they can recover from the situation caused by the decline of heavy industry?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman constantly pleads the cause of his part of the valleys, the Rhondda, but I hope that he will recognise that since my predecessor announced the programme for the valleys in 1988 there has been a remarkable transformation of those valleys—[Interruption.] Of course there is much more to be done. That remarkable transformation, which came about as a result of a positive partnership between local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency has resulted in the largest land clearance programme anywhere in Europe and has attracted an enormous amount of


private sector investment. I hope that from time to time the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to my predecessor for having initiated such a successful programme.

Dr. Spink: Do the figures given by my right hon. Friend include the second Severn river crossing, and what impact will those excellent figures have on jobs in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: The figures that I have announced today do not include the £300 million project for the second Severn crossing, which is a private-sector-led project. The record level of capital programme in Wales invested by the Welsh Office, combined with the enormous projects such as the second Severn crossing, will involve the biggest capital spend ever seen in Wales. That is good news for Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the capital investment programme is a deliberate strategy aimed at cracking the unemployment problem, particularly the black spots in Gwynedd, Dyfed and the valleys of Glamorgan, where thousands of young people are unemployed and where construction workers are looking for work? There is work to be done on schools, hospitals, housing and roads, but we seem incapable of bringing the two together and cracking the problems.

Mr. Hunt: Of course, I recognise that parts of Wales need capital investment and I shall do my best in terms of housing, education and the Welsh Development Agency. Where possible, all capital programmes will be directed in the best possible way to secure, among other aims, growth. The Welsh economy is already at the forefront of the economic upturn in the United Kingdom and I am confident that there will be many more job announcements in the coming months and many more job opportunities in Wales. I agree that we need to ensure that we do everything possible to reduce the difficult rise in unemployment throughout Wales, but we must recognise that we in Wales are doing better than the rest of the United Kingdom, Europe and many other parts of the world.

NHS Units (Allocation of Funds)

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance has been issued by his Department on the way in which finance is to be allocated to NHS units by health authorities in Wales; what assistance he has sought from the Audit Commission in ensuring that this is done fairly and in the best interests of patient care; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Welsh Office guidance to health authorities has rightly concentrated on securing quality health care rather than the allocation of budgets to providers. The Audit Commission's current study will further inform health authorities. I am pleased to announce that I have today agreed the release of an extra £750,000 for health authorities to secure additional hospital treatment before the end of the current financial year.

Mr. Michael: Is the Minister aware that, even with the additional money provided, there is still capacity in Llandough hospital to deal only with very urgent and emergency operations and that the hospital cannot undertake elective surgery for chest and geriatric patients? Will the Minister undertake an independent investigation into the way in which money is provided—or not provided

—to the units in South Glamorgan? Will he let us have an objective view of exactly how the finance will be spread among the different units?

Mr. Jones: What the hon. Gentleman asks for is already in hand. My officials are in touch with the health authority on the question of Llandough hospital. In terms of South Glamorgan more generally, I met the chairman and general manager on Friday afternoon, when they were able to tell me about the progress being made. In the first seven months of this year, more operations were carried out than in the previous year and by the end of this financial year they expect, like the other health authorities in Wales, to have achieved another record throughput.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I put it to my hon. Friend that the most important ingredient in health care is the patient? Does he accept that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that infinitely more patients are being treated in Wales, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, than were ever treated under the Labour Government?

Mr. Jones: I could not agree more. Let us quantify it: since this Government came to power in 1979, a further 161,000 patients per year have been treated in hospitals, as well as 126,000 more out-patients and 133,000 more day patients. All in all, the health service in Wales is now treating almost 400,000 more patients each year—and the number is increasing all the time.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister help the House by telling us how, after 1 April, he will ensure that the financing of health units in Wales will be able to continue and that enough urgent and non-urgent hospital beds will be in place? He will know that under a Welsh Office circular issued in 1991 elderly people can choose, with their relatives, not to be discharged to private nursing homes and be means tested but to have the entire cost borne by the health authority. Will he provide money for that?

Mr. Jones: Yes, we have already made money available under both headings. I have been able to announce a further £38 million for social services departments throughout Wales for care in the community and we have already announced that spending on the national health service in Wales will have increased by significantly more than the rate of inflation—by 5.2 per cent., in fact. I look forward confidently to next year's figures showing another record number of patients treated by the health service in Wales.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—[Interruption.] The Opposition may jeer, but my mother was born in Wales and brought up in Aberavon, so I am as Welsh as Welsh Opposition Members—and is not Wales part of the United Kingdom anyway?
Is my hon. Friend aware that only this morning, in the "Today" programme, evidence was given that more and more people are being treated by national health service trusts? Would he agree that trusts in Wales are showing themselves to be equally as successful as those in England?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right. I am delighted to find a strain of Wales healthily represented in his blood. Our national health service trust in Pembrokeshire is already treating more patients this year than last and I am looking forward to the new health service trusts coming onstream from 1 April this year following suit. One


obvious factor is the growth in day treatment cases. Since the Government came to power there has been a dramatic 329 per cent. increase in such cases in Welsh hospitals.

Mr. Morgan: In the light of the figures recently published by the Minister showing that the number of senior bureaucrats in the NHS in Wales has been rising almost as rapidly as the number of English Tory Members coming to Welsh Question Time to ask phoney questions—the numbers have risen from 180-odd to 850-odd—may I ask the Minister how he intends to curb the increasing number of bureaucrats and accountants who are running the NHS in Wales? If he does nothing, in five years' time there will be more accountants than medical consultants working for the NHS in Wales.

Mr. Jones: Clearly, something as important as the NHS in Wales has to be properly managed. There is no point in taking selective figures, often out of context, when what really matters is the number of patients being treated, which continues to increase in Wales. Last year was a record and the current year looks like being a record. Given the above-the-cost-of-living increase in funding that we have provided for the health service, I am confident that next year will be a record as well. That is the important test.

Flooding

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the local authorities and water companies to discuss the effects on Welsh commerce of repeated flooding in urban centres.

Mr. David Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, on 4 December I visited Pontypridd and Tredegar to see for myself the difficulties being faced by many people as a result of the flooding. I took the opportunity to meet representatives of the local authorities and the National Rivers Authority.

Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that for far too long the rivers of industrial south Wales have been treated as little better than open sewers? The sewerage systems serving the communities along the banks of those rivers are mainly of Victorian vintage and in heavy rain they discharge back into the streets causing misery to households and threatening the livelihoods of many of our commercial centres. Will he recognise that rebuilding those sewerage systems and reconstructing the waterways of Wales is a great civil engineering project that the Government should take seriously? It would provide a great focus for jobs in south Wales, help to reinvigorate the heart of our commercial centres, and lift the fear of flooding.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes many points and I shall address the main one—

Mr. Skinner: Money.

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman says, that is money. Since 1979 my Department has grant aided £34 million worth of flood prevention works in Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to Welsh Water for the way in which the quality of our water has improved. Welsh Water's investment programme is now running at £500,000 per day. Of course there is still a need for schemes to be presented. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my

Department does not have power to carry out the works, but it has power to grant aid schemes. I hope that some imaginative and innovative schemes will be presented so that we may address them from the point of view of grant aid.

Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the recent problems in Monmouth town. Can he add to what he said on the last occasion and make a statement?

Mr. Hunt: With regard to investment and the Bellwin rules, authorities incurring expenditure on eligible works have to submit their initial claims by 1 March. Three authorities—Blaenau Gwent, Rhondda and Cynon Valley—have told my Department that they will be able to make eligible claims. I understand that the remaining authorities' expenditure is below the threshold. I am awaiting a further report on the flooding in Monmouth and will obviously look carefully to ensure that such flooding can never happen again.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Bellwin formula applies to spending after flooding and that much misery and hardship could have been avoided if proper preventive measures had been taken in the first place? Will he undertake to carry out a survey of river banks in Wales that are most at risk and ensure that the survey will involve special funding by the Welsh Office to our local authorities and the National Rivers Authority?

Mr. Hunt: As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), my Department does not have power to carry out the works, but we have the money to grant aid those who have such powers. I have already said that since 1979 the Welsh Office has grant aided £34 million in making sure that those projects can be taken forward. I have been given evidence from within my Department that if those works had not been carried out Wales would have suffered much worse flooding. Of course I am interested in any other schemes to prevent further flooding, especially in certain parts of Wales. The hon. Member for Pontypridd knows what I have said about Pontypridd and I undertake seriously to consider any schemes that are put forward.

Tourism

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the value of tourism to Wales in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Figures for 1992 are not yet available, but in 1991, despite a difficult economic climate, the tourism industry showed considerable resilience. There was an estimated increase of 5 per cent. in the number of tourism trips taken in Wales by United Kingdom residents, compared with 1990, while expenditure by domestic tourists remained unchanged at £900 million at current prices. In addition, the Wales tourist board estimates that earnings from overseas tourists in 1991 were about £120 million.

Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that somewhat cautious answer. Does he agree that there is every reason to think that the figures for 1992 will confirm a similar rising trend for tourism in Wales? Does he further agree that credit for that goes, first, to the Wales tourist board, which has carried out excellent work, and secondly,


to the fact that section 4 grants continue to be available in Wales? What figure does my right hon. Friend estimate for section 4 grants for last year?

Sir Wyn Roberts: As my hon. Friend knows, it is a little premature to speak of tourism in Wales in 1992, but I hope that he is right. On the question of giving credit for the success of the tourism industry in Wales, there is no doubt about the important role played by the Wales tourist board. There is also no doubt that section 4 grants have helped enormously to improve the tourism product in Wales.
In 1991–92, some £4.2 million of expenditure was approved in support of 258 projects with an estimated capital value of £23.7 million. It is anticipated that almost 500 jobs will be created as a result of those projects. It is clear that the leverage factor of 1:5 in terms of section 4 grants is extremely good and the grants are very much valued by the Welsh tourism industry.

Mr. Hain: Tourism is no substitute for proper investment in industry. What action is the Welsh Office taking to promote tourism in the Neath area? The Wales tourist board official guide, "Wales 93", which is the bible of visitors to Wales, does not give Neath a single mention, although almost every other parliamentary constituency is mentioned. The guide takes no account of the fact that the Penscynnor wildlife park attracts the second largest number of visitors to any tourist attraction in Wales. There are many other scenic places, such as Gunsmoke in Seven Sisters and the Resolven canal. The Welsh Office should be promoting the many opportunities for tourism in that area.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The fact that we all know of Penscynnor and the other attractions in Neath says a great deal about the area and the work that has been done not only by the WTB, but by the local authority and others to attract tourists to the Neath area.
Tourism is an industry which provides employment for 95,000 people in Wales. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think that it is not an industry; it is an important industry.

Mr. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend help me with a conundrum? He said that the £4 million of section 4 tourism development grants were very much valued in Wales. Can he explain why the tourism industry in my constituency and in the constituency of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is denied access to such grants?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend knows that I have no responsibility for tourism outside Wales. All that I can say is that we are extremely glad that Wales has section 4 grants. We have been allowed to retain them because the industry in Wales is rather different from the industry in England. We do not have major hotel chains, and so on; our industry is very much based on small family-sized and medium-sized companies.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the prime importance of the seaside resort of Porthcawl in any strategy for raising money for tourism in Wales. Having failed to give Ogwr borough council money under the urban programme to redevelop and improve the promenade in Porthcawl, will he now have discussions with the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that money

is made available under its tourism initiative to bring Porthcawl into the 21st century, to help tourism and to provide facilities for residents?

Mr. Roberts: Of course I shall look at the situation in Porthcawl that the hon. Gentleman described. I can only reiterate that we lay enormous emphasis on tourism and the benefits that it brings to Wales. For example, the tourist board recently devised an overseas marketing strategy. We hope that the number of overseas visitors to Wales will increase over the next three years.

Wages

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the wages of the lowest decile of Welsh wage earners.

Mr. David Hunt: I always do my best to attract in Wales the sort of investment that will do precisely that.

Mr. Flynn: Why does Wales have the highest proportion of low-paid workers of any region in the United Kingdom? Why is it that since the present Secretary of State took office there has been a 6 per cent. deterioration, in relative terms, in the personal incomes of the people of Wales? How long must the Welsh people continue to be the skivvies and drudges of Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any jobs to offer today that are more rewarding than the weekend offer for people to be tied to posts while high-speed trains speed past?

Mr. Hunt: I announced today another 614 new jobs. The hon. Gentleman is selective in his use of statistics, and I will give the correct figures. Since I became Secretary of State, wage levels in Wales have increased faster, at 16.7 per cent., than in Great Britain as a whole, where the figure is 15.8 per cent. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is it not the case that in the past week the Confederation of British Industry has referred to a great improvement in terms of orders and optimism in Wales, and in the intention of many businesses in Wales to invest more in training next year even than their English counterparts? Is it not true also that wage levels in Wales will depend ultimately on the success of those particular businesses, which are now demonstrating more confidence than is the case nationally?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. One has only to look at the headlines of the past week or so, such as
Welsh firms much more confident",
and
Welsh optimism holds on to its record rise",
and
It has been an encouraging start to 1993, with signs of green shoots all round".
—[Laughter.] Those are not my words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] they are the words of John Smith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am referring to someone whom I will call the enlightened and far-sighted John Smith. He is the John Smith who used those words in the Western Mail. I am, of course, quoting the former Member of Parliament for the Vale of Glamorgan, I quote him again:
It has been an encouraging start to 1993, with signs of green shoots all around us.
I hope that Labour Members will permit me a moment of reflection, because this is the first time I have ever agreed


with a John Smith—not the John Smith who masterminded Labour's election defeat but the man who suffered as a result. It is about time that Labour Members faced the facts and stopped being the merchants of doom and gloom.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the wage earners of Point of Ayr, Taff Merthyr and Betws see green shoots in the weeks ahead? What representations are being made by the Secretary of State and his Department to the President of the Board of Trade—who was born in Wales—to ensure that the jobs in those pits, and those communities, are still here in the months to come?

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot possibly anticipate the results of the energy review and the publication of the Government's White Paper, on which I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Ron Davies: Despite his earlier histrionics, the Secretary of State knows as well as any Opposition Member that Wales has grievous economic problems—the problems of low pay and high unemployment. Surely, one way of tackling the problem of low pay would be to do something about the current appalling levels of unemployment.
Last week, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry made it clear that the coal industry's future now depends on political decisions. Will the Secretary of State give Welsh Members a direct and unambiguous assurance that he will not accept in Cabinet any decision to end mining, and the hundreds of jobs that depend on it at the Welsh collieries—Point of Ayr, Taff Merthyr and Betws?

Mr. Hunt: I have already explained that I cannot anticipate the results of the Government's deliberations. I shall certainly not do what Labour did in the 1960s, when it shut many of our Welsh pits, often without providing job alternatives. More than 70 pits were closed in a single year.
I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was rising to agree with his former colleague, John Smith, and to start talking up the Welsh economy instead of talking it down. He has indeed become noted in Wales—as the merchant of grunge.

Credit Approvals

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the basic credit approvals for capital provision for (a) Mid Glamorgan and (b) Welsh counties in total for 1993–94; and what the figure was for 1992–93.

Mr. David Hunt: The basic credit approval issued to Mid Glamorgan county council for 1993–94 is £14,626 million, compared with £19,086 million for 1992–93. In total, basic credit approvals for Welsh counties for 1993–94 are £77,067 million, compared with £99,050 million for 1992–93. The reduction in 1993–94 reflects the transfer of responsibility for further education institutions to central Government. Separate provision has also been made available to local authorities for 1993–94 to cover expenditure which is to be reimbursed by grants from the European regional development fund.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that—not only because of those capital cuts but because of the

threat of capping—many county councils, including Mid Glamorgan, are now having to abandon, postpone or cancel vital school and road-building projects, all of which could have created employment? At the same time, hundreds of jobs are going in every Welsh county as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's rate grant settlement proposals. How does all that square with the idea that public expenditure-led growth is possible in Wales, particularly in Mid Glamorgan?

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the overall totals for the next financial year compared with those for the current year, and at the gross capital provision, he will see that in Wales the settlement is expected to yield gross capital spending of £620 million by local authorities. That is an increase of £61 million, or 11 per cent., and does not take account of the £70.6 million that I set aside to cover expenditure to be reimbursed by ERDF grants. The figures speak for themselves.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will understand that, because of the introduction of his capping criteria, Gwynedd, for example, will have to cut a standstill budget by at least £3 million this year. Inevitably, that will mean the closure of old people's homes and of some schools, and the loss of jobs. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue seriously? I invite him to speak again to local authority leaders in Wales and to ensure that they are properly resourced this year.

Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that we are dealing with basic credit approvals. Provided that you, Madam Speaker, are happy that I should extend the answer to cover the whole local authority settlement, I would point out that in Wales it represents a 3·1 per cent. increase over the equivalent figure for last year. Per capita expenditure amounts to over £900 for every man, woman and child in Wales, towards which the Government will be providing through aggregate external finance, £810. In all respects that is a reasonable settlement, bearing in mind the present difficult economic circumstances. I pay tribute to all those involved in local government who, like the Government, are having to face up to those difficult decisions, against a background of difficult economic circumstances.

Mr. Ron Davies: Something is obviously worrying the Secretary of State, because we have had an increasingly eccentric performance from him this afternoon. As he does not live in, and as he does not represent, a Welsh constituency, obviously he does not understand the problems of Wales as we understand them. Does he not realise that the tight revenue settlement, together with capping, means that many local authorities are unable to spend even their reduced capital budget and that that will mean cuts and job losses in the schools and road building programmes and in homes for the elderly and the fire service? When will the Secretary of State acknowledge that unemployment in Wales is rising because of the Government's policies, not despite them?

Mr. Hunt: If eccentricity is a virtue, the hon. Gentleman displays it on every occasion in his comments to the Secretary of State. He must face up to the realities of the present situation, which are, clearly, that today we have been able to announce a record level of capital spend for next year over this year and that local authorities on their current account are having to face up to some very difficult


decisions, just as the Government are having to face up to those difficult decisions. If the hon. Gentleman calls eccentric a performance by the Treasury Bench which has just won one Welsh Question Time seven nil, then I am quite happy to plead guilty.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Land

Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his latest estimate of the numbers of hectares of land administered by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): At 31 December 1992, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 62,000 hectares of mostly let farmland.

Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Church Commissioners to re-read the beautiful passages in Isaiah, chapter 11, and Hosea, chapter 2, on the kinship between human kind and the animal kingdom and then to reconsider their policy of allowing the barbaric cruelty of deer hunting, hare coursing and fox hunting on Church Commissioners' land, or is their Christian charity confined to one single species?

Mr. Alison: I shall certainly read the scriptures that the hon. Gentleman prescribes. By going back even earlier in the Old Testament, the hon. Gentleman will recall the earliest provision of all made for derelict human kind after the fall, which was the slaughter of innocent sheep to provide woollen clothing.

Investment Policy

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the investment policy of the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners' investment policy is to seek to achieve the best total return on their assets—that is, growth of both income and capital. This reflects their primary objective, which is to provide adequate financial support for the Church's serving and retired clergy.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of some of the recent investments in property suggest that God works in a mysterious way his miracles to perform? Does he also agree that these failures will lead to the Church having to raise more money in the parishes, which is probably in the long-term interests of the Church of England?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will note that the losses suffered by the Church of England in its investment in property have been matched by the losses suffered by most of the secular world at home at the same time. There is nothing exceptional, therefore, about that. My hon. Friend will recall that the diversity of our investments meant that when the stock exchange crash occurred in 1987 we were scarcely affected by it. My hon. Friend, however, is absolutely right. There is enormously more

scope for contributions by the man and women in the parish. I look forward very much to that contribution increasing in 1993.

Mr. Enright: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's views reported at the weekend that there should be no investment in the 10 pits, will he urge the Church Commissioners to love their neighbour rather than to pursue his "beggar my neighbour" and "am I my brother's keeper?"-type policies?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman refers to a press quotation which does not ring a bell as being correct, but I must stay in order, Madam Speaker: the Church Commissioners have no direct investment in coal property or coal mines.

Ordination of Women

Mr. Waterson: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy have been in communication with the pensions board because they are contemplating leaving the ministry as a result of the decision of the General Synod to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Mr. Alison: About 500 clergy have been in touch with the pensions board on that matter since the vote by the General Synod. Most have given no indication of their intentions.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is strong feeling on this subject among the clergy in my constituency and that it would be unfair if individual clergy who chose to leave the Church on a matter of conscience were in any way penalised as a result of pension implications?

Mr. Alison: Yes. I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but, as I think he knows, provisions have been made for substantial financial compensation for clergy who wish to leave the Church of England as a result of the clergy ordination measure. We reckon that the cost is likely to be in the region of £1 million per 100 clergy retiring per annum, so the compensation figures are substantial.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Legal Aid

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to the effect of increases in lawyers' fees on the legal aid budget; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): All matters relating to total legal aid expenditure are taken into consideration when setting provision for legal aid.

Mr. Mullin: What thought has the Parliamentary Secretary's Department given to reducing the legal aid budget by making the courts more efficient, even if it is at the expense of inconveniencing the odd judge or two?

Mr. Taylor: Very tempting. Considerable efforts on a very broad front are being made urgently in the Lord Chancellor's Department to try to reduce delay. The hon.


Gentleman and the House will probably agree that we must all be the enemies of delay because it is expensive and demoralising. We are introducing a White Paper and a Magistrates Courts Bill to try to get best practice among magistrates and the inspectorate and better block listing. Likewise, in the county courts, cases below £1,000 will be dealt with far less formally and more cases will be dealt with in the county courts in lieu of the High Court. These are only a few examples of a broad front endeavour to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Dickens: When the new proposals for legal aid are laid before Parliament they are not debatable, so does my hon. Friend think that the Lord Chancellor would accept amendments?

Mr. Taylor: No, I do not think that the Lord Chancellor, having satisfied himself at the appropriate moment that he has it exactly right, would be such a man —he will stick to his own proposals, explain them and, if necessary, defend them.

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he will adopt to publicise the availability of legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Legal Aid Board produces leaflets and posters on the legal aid scheme and distributes them widely.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that, whatever amount of money is spent on advertising, about 7 million people in Britain will lose access to legal aid? Does he accept that in Wales, tens of thousands of people on low wages, but just above benefit level, will be excluded from access to legal aid? Even at this late stage, why does he not tell the Lord Chancellor's Department that it should think again about its reprehensible decision?

Mr. Taylor: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman may find that the position in the Principality is more reassuring than he suspects. Since 1979, the number of acts of assistance given under legal aid has increased from 900,000 to 3·1 million and, during the immediate forecast period of the next three years, it is expected to rise to 4 million. So far from our having cut legal aid, it has doubled over the past four years and is due, under the autumn statement, to increase in the next three years by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. It is available to almost half of society and more than one fifth of society will receive it free. It is arguably one of the most generous systems of legal aid in the world.

Mr. Stephen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the figures that he has just given, but does he accept that the key question to be answered is what proportion of our national resources can we afford to spend on the dispute settlement system?

Mr. Taylor: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. We may need better ways of resolving disputes and, in considering the application of resources, we must certainly consider the interests of one party who is a party to every legal aid case—the taxpayer. All too often, the taxpayer seems to get left out of such considerations.

Mr. Boateng: Bearing in mind the concern that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Lord Chancellor's legal aid proposals, will the Minister

tell the House by what authority and at how much expense the highly contentious document going under the misnomer "Legal Aid—The Facts" was produced? Will he answer that question bearing in mind the widespread concern about the Lord Chancellor's proposals in the profession and among consumer associations—of which he is well aware—and the fact that the real fact of the matter, which the document does not reveal, is that up to 12 million people will lose all eligibility to free legal aid?

Mr. Taylor: I just cannot see how 12 million people can drop out of a system that is being used by 3.1 million people; it does not make sense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know who is prepared to accept responsibility for the document in this House, the answer is—I am.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of achieving the best use of the Lord Chancellor's budget for legal aid is to improve the efficiency of the courts? Does he accept that a higher quality of court manager and therefore a better use of the listing system—through, for example, computers—is something to aim for, and will he endeavour to ensure that his Department trains court listing officers to the highest possible degree?

Mr. Taylor: I am entirely sympathetic to the drift of my hon. Friend's question. It seems to me to be a proper ambition—and it is perhaps becoming an urgent ambition —that the various courts should be linked by computer. In that, I include the magistrates courts. Often, as one Opposition Member found to his cost not long ago, a defendant may be summoned to appear in two magistrates courts simultaneously, may choose the one of his own liking—or least disliking—and may simply not tell the other court that he does not intend to turn up, causing great inconvenience and cost to that other court. I am sympathetic to the aim of linking the courts, their records, their information and their planning by means of modern information technology.

Judges and Magistrates (Election)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will now introduce legislation to elect judges and magistrates.

Mr. John M. Taylor: No. The Government do not consider that elections would provide a suitable basis for appointment or be compatible with the principle of judicial independence.

Mr. Skinner: He was quick to do it with the trade union leaders, though. Why is it that judges are seemingly alone in not having been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world? Instead of simply dressing up in powdered wigs and kinky clothes, why do not judges have to fight for their jobs? Why are they not selected and reselected like Members of Parliament? And why do not the Government clean out the freemasonry? Why, in working-class communities, are there more Tory magistrates than Labour magistrates—even in areas where the Labour vote is three times greater than the Tory vote? The whole thing stinks and it is time that they got rid of patronage, had judges elected and re-elected and made them fight for their jobs.

Mr. Taylor: There is no reason why a judge should not be a freemason—[Interruption.]—or a member of Rotary or Round Table. The judge takes a judicial oath, and that oath will guide him as to his interests in any matter and whether he is qualified to deal with it.
I am anxious to answer the hon. Gentleman fairly and squarely in dealing with the question of the composition of benches and the background to them. It may be useful for him to know that in Derbyshire, his county, the Lord Chancellor is confined to those who offer themselves for appointment in the first place. That is the recruiting ground. To be a magistrate, a candidate should apply. To become a judge, it is necessary first for the candidate to apply for part-time judicial service. So the Lord Chancellor is limited in his recruiting ground to those who offer themselves.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is puerile to call for the election of judges and magistrates and that should such an unfortunate development ever occur, it would lead to the politicisation of the judiciary, which would seriously undermine the independence of our justice system?

Mr. Taylor: Our judges and magistrates are, by their oath, independent. There are elections for judges in the United States and I am not sure that the results are always very edifying.

Ms. Eagle: Does the Minister feel that if judges were elected, we might end up with a more representative sample of society serving on the bench, including more women, remembering that at present there is a disgracefully low level of women sitting on the bench? Is he aware that that leads to people taking perverse views of the roll of women in society and to some comments that are unfortunate, to say the least, being made in some cases?

Mr. Taylor: The uppermost rule must always be that the best people are chosen, though I share the hon. Lady's view, as does the Lord Chancellor, that there should be more women and more representatives of minorities. The problem at relevant past times in the recruiting grounds in the legal professions was that there were not enough representatives of the right ages of those minorities. But they are joining the legal professions in far greater numbers now, so that shortly, when they move to the age when they will be eligible for appointment, they will be there for promotion. The hon. Lady looks forward to that time and it may surprise her to hear that I do, too.

Legal Aid

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the growth in cost of legal aid since 1979.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Net expenditure on legal aid has risen from £99 million in 1979–80 to £906 million in 1991–92. It is estimated that legal aid will cost more than £1·1 billion this financial year, some 28 per cent. more than last year.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that increase of 10 times underlines the need for the reforms that the Lord Chancellor is introducing? What are the

income limits below which legal aid will still be payable under those proposals, and how do they compare with 1979 income limits?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend asks whether the increases that I reported in my answer were of themselves a fundamental reason to get legal aid under control. The answer must be absolutely yes, they are.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that the changes will be extremely damaging to women who want to apply for aid in domestic violence cases? Is he further aware that if he is serious about wanting to bring about cuts in the legal aid budget, he should consider the rapid appointment of several stipendiaries, a step which would not only clear court cases but, in the long run, save an enormous amount of money?

Mr. Taylor: In the instance that the hon. Lady gives, of a woman at threat and risk of domestic violence, she will find that in all normal cases—if that lady goes for representation—the solicitor, quickly satisfying himself that she is eligible, will give her an emergency legal aid certificate, start to represent her and get help for her, such as perhaps restraining orders, at a very early stage.
I believe that we have about the right number of stipendiaries. Our long tradition of a lay magistracy has served the country well. The stipendiary must be seen as complementary and not an alternative to the lay magistrate.

Lady Olga Maitland: In view of the staggering increase in spending on legal aid, and recalling that my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world, would he spell out how Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world because it is a fantastic success story?

Mr. Taylor: I have never said that Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world, but I suspect that it may well be. Legal aid is available to half of the population, and it is available to more than one fifth of the population for no contribution at all. Far from the legal aid system being cut in the autumn statement, it is due to increase by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. in the next three years. The number of acts of assistance is expected to increase over that period from 3·1 million to 4 million. That is generous.

Mr. Byers: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will amend the rules relating to the availability of legal aid in order to assist those individuals involved in class action.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Legal Aid Board has recently established special procedures relating to multi-party actions which are intended to assist the progress of such actions in appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that the 1,700 people who are involved in the class action against the manufacturers of valium librium and mogadon have had their legal aid suspended, and that the reason given for that suspension is that some of them have weak medical support? In the light of the decision to suspend legal aid for those people, will the Minister review the guidelines to which he referred a moment ago to ensure that those with strong legal cases are not denied legal aid because of the weakest case? In particular, will he take urgent steps to


review the decision which has been taken to suspend legal aid from those involved in the valium, librium and mogadon action?

Mr. Taylor: No, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that in any civil case there must be enough medical and other evidence to make the grant of legal aid

reasonable. As with privately funded cases, the prospective winnings should also be enough to make litigation worth while despite its costs. However disappointing it may be for the plaintiffs, it is not fair to ask the rest of the tax-paying community to pay for cases that will not prosper or, if they do, will produce no net winnings.

Bosnia

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
securing peace in Bosnia.
With the collapse of the Geneva peace talks, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen are going to the United Nations Security Council to ask that United Nations pressure be applied for the acceptance of their peace agreement. We are faced with the prospect of the United Nations being asked to apply political, economic and military pressures on any party which refuses to accept the Vance-Owen proposals.
The House has not debated Bosnia for a considerable period. The people of Bosnia, the British forces who are risking their lives in Bosnia and the British public—indeed, hon. Members of the House—are entitled to know the policy on Bosnia of Her Majesty's Government. What instructions will be issued by Her Majesty's Government to our representatives in the United Nations in the coming days when the life and death decisions are to be taken?
If the Vance-Owen plan remains unacceptable, and if even the United Nations action to enforce the agreement fails, what will Britain, the European Community and the rest of the international community do to stop the slaughter, lift the sieges, stop the ethnic cleansing, feed the hungry, provide safe havens for those in great danger and stop the rape of women and of girls as young as six?
The terribly difficult future for Bosnia should have been aired in the House many times before now. I plead with you, Madam Speaker, to give the House the opportunity of debating how we can secure an effective peace for the people of Bosnia and that poor and very dangerous country.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
securing peace in Bosnia.
I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member has said. I have to give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Among your many onerous duties—I cannot pretend that this is a major matter—you are responsible for the supervision of the customs, practices and behaviour of the House. You will know that on Thursday night there was a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule. When the vote took place, 15 members of the Liberal party voted for that suspension. One gained the impression that it was their intention to pursue and follow the debate thereafter. Apparently, that was not so. There was a subsequent vote between 12 and 1 o'clock and only one Liberal member was present.
Is it appropriate that people should vote for the House to carry on its business into the early hours of the morning and then absent themselves into the darkness of the night and leave it to other people—

Madam Speaker: Order. As Speaker, I do not listen to points of order about matters which arose when the House was in Committee.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As reported in The Guardian, the Post Office Board and the Government are conspiring to privatise the Post Office—Post Office managers to line their pockets and Ministers to line the Treasury coffers. Surely we should have a parliamentary debate about that. Have you had any request from the Government to make an urgent statement about the matter before they make their final decisions?

Madam Speaker: No Ministers have let me know that they wish to make a statement on that issue.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement about the takeover of LBC? I wonder whether you and others are aware that the previous company, Crown Communications group, ran LBC into bankruptcy. It has now been stated that some of the personnel who brought the company down and made it bankrupt will run the new company, with Lady Porter as a backseat driver. It is high time that we had a statement.

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Ministers that they wish to make a statement today on that matter.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.),

LICENSED BETTING OFFICES

That the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 51) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Scotland Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 68) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

ENTERPRISE ZONES

That the Lanarkshire (Motherwell) Enterprise Zones Designation Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 24) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Lanarkshire (Hamilton) Enterprise Zones Designation Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 23) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Lanarkshire (Monklands) Enterprise Zones Designation Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 25) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: We now come to the Orders of the Day—[Interruption.] Order. We do not want any side meetings going on here. There is an important one going on at the moment from the Chair.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28 January]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We are proceeding with a Bill which deals with all aspects of European union at the very moment when the previous showcase of European union, the exchange rate mechanism, is in tatters. Is it appropriate for us to proceed further, especially with the debate on citizenship of what is described as the union, without a Minister coming before the Committee to tell us the latest position on the ERM and the impact and influence that it will have on the pound? It seems to me that we are proceeding down a Utopian and impractical road when the previous scheme is already in tatters and no statement has been made to the House or the Committee. I should like your guidance accordingly.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman's point does not have too much relevance to amendment No. 12. I suggest that we proceed with the debate on that amendment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said about the demise of the ERM, as this Maastricht debate is closely connected with the ERM, which has seemingly reached a state of collapse, could it not be argued that we should not proceed with this tinpot Maastricht Bill? It is meaningless. France or one of the Benelux countries may well be the next to suffer the domino effect. The whole thing is crazy. We keep debating this issue despite the fact that it is dead. It is time we directed our attention to questions that matter to the people—unemployment, housing, education—and stopped pottering about with a Bill that ought to have its neck wrung.

The Chairman: As the hon. Member is aware, the Bill was given a Second Reading by a majority of 244. I am therefore duty bound to ensure that we proceed with the Committee stage and that we have a fair debate.

Mr. Tony Marlow: You, Mr. Morris, know that today's business was decided last week. You look at me in a quizzical manner, but it is a fact that the menu for this week was decided through the usual channels. Last week, it was decided that we should debate this Bill today. However, since that time certain events concerning the exchange rate mechanism have taken place. The Bill is, in large measure, about European monetary union—a system based on various rules and regulations which, after the events of the past weekend, will not be appropriate. European monetary union can work only through arrangements different from those provided for in the Bill.
How is it possible for the Committee, at this late stage, to make the necessary contact with the Government to secure a change in today's business? It is quite obvious that this Bill is no longer appropriate, as the European


exchange rate mechanism is dead, and monetary union is buried. We are legislating for something that is manifest nonsense. May we have your assistance, Mr. Morris?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but the rules of the House of Commons are such that I have to accept the business that is set down for today. The first amendment for debate is No. 12, which deals with citizenship.

Mr. Peter Shore: I do not know when we shall reach the question of cohesion, but that debate may not be far off. I am aware of the fact that, in dealing with large numbers of amendments, the Chair faces difficulties. However, I have to say that, in respect of this question, it seems that two debates are joined. It is quite clear that at least half of these amendments are sponsored by hon. Members who are interested in the composition of the Committee of the Regions. As different parts of the United Kingdom are represented here, I understand the widespread interest. However, there is a distinct sub-cluster of amendments dealing with the substance of regional policy—a matter of great importance. Have you, Mr. Morris, been able to consider this matter, and will you give some thought to the possibility of our having two separate debates for this group?

The Chairman: I am especially grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, to whose letter I have responded. He may find my reply on the Board, although it will not have been there until about 2.30 pm.
In essence, many of these categories represent a confederation of issues. I have to look at the opening amendment and consider the implications of those that are attached to it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that, in the end, it is a matter of judgment. On the question of cohesion, my judgment is that all the amendments that are linked pull to the centre. It may well be that some of the regional issues will develop, and it will be in order, in the course of speeches relating to certain amendments, to allude to them. Nevertheless, as they have particular relevance to the lead amendment, I am not inclined to break down the groups.

Mr. William Cash: We are about to turn to the question of citizenship, which is, of course, related to elections and, in turn, to the rights of voters, who, at general elections, determine matters relating to monetary affairs. From all that is happening in the markets, it is abundantly clear that the exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union are dead.

The Chairman: Order. That may have been an ingenious way of reintroducing the question of the exchange rate mechanism, but I have already ruled on that matter, and I do not want any further references to it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We all appreciate the problem that the grouping of amendments pose for the Chair. You told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that the important debates on the constitution and the powers and activities of the Committee of the Regions are linked to the broad issue of cohesion, which covers north-south regional assistance. According to your ruling, those amendments will be taken together. Will you bear in mind that if the amendments

were to be incorporated in a Bill it might well contain 10 or 12 clauses and two schedules, as was the case when we discussed the question of asylum last week? Will you bear that and the range of subjects under discussion in mind when making any decision about the conclusion of the debate?

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair is willing to listen sympathetically to particular points made and especially to distinctive points, as I have said during discussions on earlier amendments.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You said that you did not want to take any more points of order on the exchange rate mechanism and, as always, I abide by the ruling of the Chair. I should like your guidance on the circumstances in which you would be willing to consider a manuscript amendment, if events in the outside world make our debate irrelevant.

The Chairman: When I see the manuscript amendment.

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You mentioned that you were minded to consider the closure with sympathy and with regard to the number of amendments in the group. Can you confirm that, on average, during the passage of the Single European Act, three amendments were grouped together? The next group contains 12 and, under the heading of cohesion, 23 amendments and four new clauses are grouped together. Am I right in thinking, therefore, that each debate should be roughly seven times as long as the average during our consideration of the Single European Act?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my earlier remarks is entirely wrong. I do not think that I said anything to that effect, and frankly I am surprised that he picked it up. The number of amendments is irrelevant to the length of the debate. It is open to hon. Members to put down a host of similar amendments. I have served on Bills when there have been even more amendments than there are for this Bill. It is the Chair's responsibility to ensure that there is a full debate on and around the lead amendment and the matters that flow from it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. On the subject of closures, a serious matter is at issue. If a Bill is timetabled, right hon. and hon. Members know exactly how much time they have to deal with each stage of the legislation. We are working to a totally arbitrary system of closures—at the whim of the Government, it seems. Will you use your discretion and, at the very least, will you not cut off an hon. Member in mid-sentence, as happened to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), because it appears discourteous? You, Mr. Morris, did not do that—it was one of your colleagues in the Chair—but it is a discredit to the Committee.

The Chairman: I must make it clear that the acceptance of a closure is not at the whim of the Government, but is entirely a matter for the judgment of the occupant of the Chair, who decides whether the amendments have been adequately debated.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Marlow: It is totally new, as it has only just occurred to me. My intention is to be helpful. Obviously you and the Committee do not want to legislate for nonsense and we have difficulties because of the monetary situation. Would it be possible to suspend the sitting for a short time because of the great pressure—

The Chairman: Order. No. Clearly, as the point has only just occurred to the hon. Gentleman, it cannot have had much consideration.
Before I call the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to move the amendment, perhaps the Chair will be allowed a point of order on a subject about which a number of colleagues have written to me. I appeal to members of both Front Benches to speak into the microphones in front of them and to resist the temptation to turn round to address their colleagues, as other Members cannot then hear their arguments.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
`(except Item C on pages 11 and 12 of Cm 1934)'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(other than Article 8)'.

No. 125, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
`(excluding Article G C, on pages 11 and 12 of Cm 1934).'.

No. 128, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(excluding Article 8e on page 12 of Cm 1934).'.

No. 165, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
`(except Article 8 on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 166, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 8a on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 167, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 8b on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 169, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 8e on page 12 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 317, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 364, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 8c as referred to in Article G on page 12 of Command Paper number 1934'.

No. 424, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'other than obligations arising from Articles 8 or Articles 8(a to e) on pages 11 to 12 of Cm 1934, concerning Representation of the People Acts and matters related thereto.'.

No. 427, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'other than duties imposed in citizens of the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise after the coming into force of this Act in respect of Article 8, paragraph (2) in Cm. 1934, page 11, other than those incorporated in an Act of Parliament specifying those duties.'.

No. 428, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'other than Article 8b of Cm. 1934, page 11, except where arrangements existed prior to 1st January 1993.'.

No. 429, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except for the second paragraph of Article 8e on page 12 of Cm. 1934.'.

No. 44, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert 'but not Part Two thereof'.

No. 115, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
'(3) The above subsections shall only come into force subsequent to the laying before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government of a Command Paper concerning "Citizenship of the Union" which shall include: (i) a description of the

duties of citizens, as referred to in Article 8(l) of the Treaty on European Union; (ii) the likely implications for the United Kingdom of Article 8a (Freedom of residence); (iii) the need for any derogations in respect of Article 8b (Municipal membership and voting); (iv) the effect on the personnel, organisation and financing of H.M. Foreign Service in respect of obligations imposed by Article 8c (Common protection by diplomatic and consular authorities); and to approval of the terms of such a document by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

Mr. Blair: This amendment raises the issue of citizenship and the new article 8 of the treaty of Rome that is provided for in the Maastricht Bill. New article 8 declares that every person holding nationality of a member state becomes a European citizen. However, it is made clear that the countries themselves will determine nationality. Under new article 8, such people are deemed citizens of the European Community. The article is partly symbolic as it establishes for the first time the formal concept of citizenship in the European Community. It confers new rights on those citizens. We want to ask the Government questions about their policy on those issues and have debates on them so that everyone may have a full understanding of article 8.
Article 8a provides for a right to move and reside freely within member states, subject to treaty conditions, which include many of the directives promulgated under the treaty of Rome that affect the ability to reside and freedom of movement. Article 8 effectively reiterates, but also slightly expands on, article 8A of the Single European Act 1986. The term "resides" is added in new article 8 in the treaty, but I should have thought that that was implied by the provisions in the Single European Act.
Under new article 8a(2), the Council may unanimously act to facilitate the rights of people as citizens after a proposal from the European Council and the specific assent of the European Parliament. Article 8b gives citizens the right to vote in local elections of the country where they are residing, subject to details that will be drawn up by the Council by the end of 1994, after a proposal by the Commission and consultation with the European Parliament. There is also an additional safeguard of derogations being permitted where warranted by the specific problems of a member state. That gives, for the first time, a right to vote in local elections where the nationals of any member state are residing in a member country.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the word "municipal" does not necessarily mean local? In European law and in the Court of Justice, the ruling has already been given in an important Italian case that the word "municipal", as applied to the treaty, would also mean national. The word "municipal" is regarded as referring to national in the context of the European Community. Therefore, it is highly debatable whether the hon. Gentleman can say that, in this context, the word "municipal" means local.

Mr. Blair: Of course, I shall study the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should have thought that the word "municipal" was used here precisely to distinguish such elections from national elections. I would be deeply surprised if, in that context, the word "municipal" had the opposite meaning of national.
The details of how the procedures are to be implemented will provide a further opportunity to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The details are to be the


subject of proposals drawn up by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission and after consultation with the European Parliament. The procedure is time limited, and should be complete by the end of 1994. Will the Home Secretary say whether there are any procedures to be undertaken in the event of failure to reach such an agreement, which is possible?
Some nations—as I understand it, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands—already grant some form of right to vote in local elections. This country gives such a right to Commonwealth and Irish citizens. Article 8b(2) has the same procedures, but on a slightly different timetable, on the ability to vote in elections for the European Parliament. The details of such procedures are to be agreed by the end of 1993. Article 8c extends the protection by diplomatic or consular authorities of all member states to any of their citizens.

Mr. Max Madden: As my hon. Friend knows, the main qualification for voting purposes in the United Kingdom is residence on a given date at a given address. Under these arrangements, what will be the qualification for residence for a European union citizen? How long will he have had to live in the United Kingdom before residence can be claimed? What information will be sought: to whom will it be sent? Will there be any right of appeal if residence is refused? What would happen to a person denied the right of residence, given that there are no deportation rights under these provisions?

Mr. Blair: That is a fairly lengthy list of questions. The issue of residence will be justiciable by a citizen of Europe in exactly the same way as it is now under our domestic law. As for the test of residence, article 8b makes it clear, in respect of this and in respect of voting for the European Parliament, that detailed arrangements are a matter to be discussed by the Council on a proposal from the Commission and from the European Parliament. Those are the circumstances in which some of these questions will be answered.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I think that my hon. Friend is saying that the House of Commons is not to be given the information because it is not available. Does he intend to deal with article 8.2, which he has not yet mentioned but which speaks not only of enjoying rights, but of the fact that
citizens … shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
What does he imagine that those duties will be?

Mr. Blair: The duties are set out there are duties laid down in the treaty of Rome. As I understand it, article 8 is not an article of the Maastricht treaty. It is to be a new article of the treaty of Rome, so the obligations set out in it are those of the treaty of Rome. Article 48, for instance, concerns the freedom of people to work in other member states. It imposes rights and obligations. I should have thought that the idea of taking rights and obligations together was entirely sensible—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blair: It is an extraordinary feature of these debates that saying something that one thinks is entirely uncontroversial provokes a storm of outrage.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why do all the entitlements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred require citizenship?

Mr. Blair: Citizenship is established by the new treaty, but the rights that people have are rights that they already have to a certain extent under the Single European Act —the right to move around freely within the Community, for example. The purpose of citizenship is to add, in part symbolically, to the rights that people already possess. Citizenship follows entirely naturally from the fact that people are given certain rights and obligations in the Community. The notion of citizenship is sensibly derived from those principles.

Mr. Marlow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual supreme courtesy. I should like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). All these rights and obligations will exist if and when this Bill is passed. They already exist under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, so why do we need the concept of citizenship? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel this way, but many of mine certainly do not want to be European citizens, which they will be forced to be if the Bill is passed. Why does he want to impose that on people when there is no benefit to be had from it?

Mr. Blair: As I have just said, these obligations and rights exist anyway—

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Blair: I think that my hon. Friend will find that they do if he looks at the treaty carefully. Citizenship merely formalises the relationship. Many people see no contradiction between being citizens of Europe, as defined by the treaty, and being citizens of their own national states.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Under any of the provisions, will it be possible for a person to renounce his citizenship of the union?

Mr. Winnick: If it is, may I apply now to opt out?

Mr. Blair: I note that my hon. Friend wishes to add to the opt-out list.
Surely the position is exactly the same as the one that currently exists for a citizen of this country. One does not renounce that here or in Europe.

Mr. Wilkinson: That relates to the question that I wish to pose. How on earth can a citizen of the union renounce his citizenship without renouncing his British birthright or British nationality that he acquired by naturalisation? Surely there is a great distinction. There is no process for renouncing European citizenship, whereas a British citizen can renounce citizenship whenever he or she wishes.

4 pm

Mr. Blair: If a British citizen renounces his citizenship, it will have an impact on his citizenship under the treaty, but I see no great problem about that. I shall speak about citizenship towards the end of my speech. I accept that there is a fundamental disagreement between those who regard the concept of citizenship in Europe as awful and those who do not. We would do well to recognise that at the beginning.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Blair: I should like to make some more progress before allowing any more interventions.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to intervene before he leaves his present point.

Mr. Blair: Of course.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on this matter, may like to consider my intervention. My hon. Friend says that the provision does not change much: it just gives a new name to obligations under the treaty of Rome. However, we are not to become citizens of the treaty of Rome or even the city of Rome because article 8 states:
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye may well want to become a citizen of the European union under the treaty of that union which, of course, subsumes the treaty of Rome. Why does my hon. Friend think that at midnight on a certain day every citizen of this country will become obligated to the duties imposed by citizenship of the union, which may well be greater than the duties imposed by citizenship of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Blair: Some of us feel that the advent of citizenship in Europe is not a loss of national identity. That is the point at issue. I do not at all regard it as a loss of national identity because I think that we shall gain something from it, and that that gain will outweigh any theoretical loss.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has been diligent in allowing interventions by those who do not share his and my outlook on this issue, and it is fair to allow an intervention putting the other side of the case. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is extremely well established in the United Kingdom. No one among those hon. Members from Wales and Scotland who have been most active and vociferous in the debate suggests that people from Wales or Scotland are any less Welsh or Scottish because they happen to be British subjects. They are subjects rather than citizens, and many of us think that it is worth establishing citizenship in this country and in the wider European Community as well.

Mr. Blair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that we shall be entirely persuasive on this matter.
Article 8d gives the right to petition the European Parliament and to apply to the ombudsman. The procedures for doing that are set out in articles 138d and 138e of the treaty of Rome. The ombudsman is given the important power to investigate maladministration in the European Community. Article 8e imposes an obligation on the Commission to report progress in relation to citizenship and it allows rights to be added or strengthened by the Council unanimously on a Commission proposal after consulting the European Parliament. That change can be effected only in accordance with the constitutional requirements of member states.
Those are the rights that are set out. The article is in part symbolic and in part it confers certain rights to vote, to petition the European Parliament and to go to the ombudsman. The procedure gives certain rights and imposes certain obligations, but it also has a formal status. Many people understand that the European Community has a power over the citizens of the Community, so it is entirely sensible that, where people are both ruled and

have a share in ruling, citizenship should be established for them. Indeed, we should be looking for new and better ways to involve the citizens of Europe in the decisions that will affect them.
Article 8 is at least a beginning in that process. It does not mean that we scrap our nationality or citizenship, or even that we subordinate it. It means that running alongside our rights and obligations as British citizens will be a European citizenship.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend accept that obligations under the treaty include, for everybody over the age of 18 in this country, conscription for military service?

Mr. Blair: As far as I am aware, it does not include that obligation.
The Single European Act, which was passed some years ago, allows people to move freely around the European Community. Article 8 builds on and extends that. We have had that provision for some time without any of the deleterious effects suggested by some hon. Members.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy; he has taken many interventions from both sides of the Committee. Does he agree that, however much he wishes to minimise the position, the article formalises in the Bill and in the treaty a new and revolutionary development? What authority or mandate do we have from the British people to introduce a citizenship of the union? I know of no mandate or authority that would allow us to follow that route.
This may be a revolutionary idea for both Front Benches, but would not it be far more appropriate to ask the British people whether they agree with the proposal? If, by a majority, they say that they do, I shall accept that that is their will. What authority or mandate do we have to follow what is undoubtedly—although the word is not used for obvious reasons—a federal route? It is a paving step towards total federal union.

Mr. George Robertson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick: It does not matter how much my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) shakes his head, it is a federal route. Once we follow it, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the tide. We must have a mandate from the British people before we proceed in that way.

The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was shaking his head because he knew that the matter was not covered by the amendment.

Mr. Blair: Our mandate is derived from our ability as Members of Parliament to represent our constituents. Article 8 will allow people the right to vote in both local elections and European elections. It will also allow them to petition the European Parliament and to go to the ombudsman. I cannot for the life of me see why those rights are so inconsistent with our ability to function effectively, either as a country or as individuals within a country, that some hon. Members should construct an edifice of outrage. I think it to be an entirely sensible notion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: I want to conclude to allow someone else to speak, but I will take a final intervention.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has obviously studied the matter carefully. Is he right to say that there is a real bonus in all this? I have a residence in Southend-on-Sea and another in Glasgow, but British law states that I can vote in only one of those places. If someone who is a resident of Paris also becomes a resident of Southend-on-Sea, will he be able to vote twice? That could be a dramatic development. Is there the hidden bonus that someone who has residences in two countries can vote in both, but someone who had two residences in this country can vote only once? That would be a dramatic bonus for the democratic system.

Mr. Blair: Of course one could not vote at two places in the same election, but one can do as the hon. Gentleman says now. Article 8 does not affect those arrangements. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that we shall lose something by the notion of citizenship in Europe. For a generation that has seen and liked a Europe in which barriers to co-operation are coming down, citizenship provides something of a symbol.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will it be two votes or one?

Mr. Blair: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question many times. Viewed through the eyes of young people in particular in this country today, the prospect of a closer Europe is good. It is not frightening; it does not alarm them. It can even excite and sometimes inspire them. I do not believe that the concept of citizenship will be in any way detrimental to our country or those who live in it. Viewed sensibly, it will be part of progress towards a better, more stable world—and the European Community has a place in that.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for moving his amendment in the way that he did. Having returned to these debates, I am glad that they make a welcome change in the distribution of labour between the two Front Benches. Normally, it falls to the Minister to explain particular provisions and to answer interventions, but I am spared that in large part, because the hon. Member for Sedgefield has already subjected himself to cross-examination on every aspect of article 8.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as I did the other day, on giving answers that are entirely in line with my understanding of article 8. It is becoming increasingly clear to me as we debate parts of the Bill in which the hon. Gentleman and I have been involved that—as I have long suspected, for as long as we have been in the House—the hon. Gentleman's views on the European Community are indistinguishable from my own.

Mr. Blair: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman rises to find a difference. He has an unfortunate mental block on the social chapter, which I know that he wanted to see included in the obligations on us, whereas we declined to be drawn into that. The hon. Gentleman holds different views also on economic and monetary union. Labour's position is that we should have assented, whereas the Government decided to opt out of the immediate

provisions of EMU and to reserve questions such as a single currency for a later date. As some of my hon. Friends have said, in current circumstances that date looks further away rather than nearer.

Mr. Blair: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now. For the sake of defending his own back, as I appreciate, he is trying to find some difference between his opinions and my own.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to answer my question before I ask it. If we wholeheartedly agree on those issues, why is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared, as is every other party in Europe—socialist or conservative—to agree to the social chapter and make sure that social Europe is part of the new Europe that we want to create?

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps that discussion could take place elsewhere, because that aspect is not covered by the amendment.

Mr. Clarke: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Morris, because that topic was debated at considerable length last week.
On citizenship, I agree entirely with the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. Like him, I feel no sense of outrage at the idea that, together with being a national of the United Kingdom, I shall be a citizen of the European union. I understand that some people in this country feel qualms about that proposition, but I do not believe that their view is held by the majority.
When the concept of European citizenship is examined in the context of article K, the practical consequences should not raise fears in anyone's mind. In fact, important new rights will flow from it to the citizens of this country.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to respond to the debate if he manages to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris? He is putting the Government's case now, and several speeches will follow. It would be helpful if we knew that, after those speeches, he will respond; otherwise, it will be difficult for hon. Members to know whether to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Clarke: I am not usually accused of being too withdrawn in debates, or of being glued to my seat. Perhaps unfortunately, I regard the matter as fairly straightforward, and I am speaking now mainly to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. As I said in our previous debate, whether I speak again rather depends on what points are raised. If points are raised that have not been dealt with so far, I may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris. Let me, however, keep my options open by saying that I see no point in doing so if I find at that stage that I have nothing new to add, or that no new points have been raised.

Mr. Rowlands: Whatever the joys and benefits of citizenship of a European union, will it be possible for someone who does not wish to belong to that union to renounce his or her citizenship?

Mr. Clarke: For as long as a person is a British national, that person will be a European citizen, under the terms of the treaty and the Bill. As was said earlier, if someone wishes to renounce British nationality, certain


consequences will follow; but there is no separate provision whereby a person can remain a United Kingdom national but renounce citizenship of the European union. As I hope to illustrate, trying to renounce citizenship would have few practical consequences for such people; indeed, they would be giving up important new rights— albeit of a limited kind—conferred by the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Cash: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being the first Secretary of State to attend the Committee stage. I should like to hope that some of the others will appear to speak about foreign affairs and, indeed, Treasury matters. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend on the way in which he is taking all this punishment.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the word "municipal" is important, in relation to the question of citizenship? The European Court of Justice has already ruled that the word "municipal", in relation to the Community, means "national": that raises serious questions of interpretation, in regard to whether the right of a national to vote in other countries' elections will arise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that a careful assessment is made by his legal and other advisers?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that questions are also raised in relation to the duties imposed under title II, including questions relating to allegiance and possible conscription? Many such matters are dealt with effectively by provisions in the citizenship section of the treaty, which seem to be more like a blank cheque than anything else.

Mr. Clarke: Let me deal with my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. The treaty and the Bill impose no new duties on individuals. It is the existing duty of us all to comply with the law, including such European Community law as is directly applicable in this country, or has been introduced by Parliament following a European directive. Sometimes a United Kingdom court judgment will impose a duty on an individual to comply with what is the law of the land because of our European Community membership, but no new duties are being inclosed.
I am glad to say that the idea of a duty to serve in a European army, or to be conscripted into military service of some kind, is entirely unfounded. I understand that that issue featured extensively in the Danish referendum: one reason why many Danes were induced to vote against the treaty was the fact that campaigners had persuaded them that they were about to be conscripted into a European army. According to all my study of the treaty and all the advice that I have received, there is no such risk.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I am still replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
His questions lead me to the new rights granted under new paragraph K, including the extremely important right to vote and stand for election in certain elections. The right to vote and to stand for election is in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in whichever member state the citizen resides.
My firm opinion, and the advice that I have received, is that "municipal" does not mean national general elections.
The choice of the word "municipal" in the relevant article was designed precisely to rule out elections to national Parliaments. If my hon. Friend is correct when he says that he has seen a judgment of the European Court which he believes leads to an interpretation of the word "municipal" as meaning national elections, I shall be happy to look at it and give it further consideration; but, as I stand here, it is my firm belief that what we are talking about are local government elections, probably with effect from 1995, and the European Parliament elections in 1994.
British citizens are thereby given the right to vote or to stand for election in those elections, if they are resident in another Community state—a right similar to the right that is given to Community nationals who are resident here.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it the Home Secretary's understanding that the Queen becomes a citizen of the union of Europe under the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Marlow: Has she been asked?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give further consideration to that question, but I do not see why not.

Mr. Shepherd: She must do.

Mr. Clarke: The Queen is undoubtedly a British national. She, being a national of the United Kingdom, is likely to become a citizen of the European union. [Interruption.] I shall reflect upon that point, but I very much suspect that that is the position. I do not believe that we should expand upon the position of the monarch at length, but I do not see why the Queen should be any more fearful of that prospect than anybody else is likely to be.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On the question of citizenship and the right of people to vote in elections, is the Home Secretary aware that across the continent of Europe there are 15 million people who are not citizens of any European country but citizens of countries outside Europe—political refugees, economic migrants and so on —who are denied any political rights in national elections in any country whatsoever? Does he not think that it is time that this aspect of prejudice against people who live and work in Europe was addressed?

Mr. Clarke: Every country obviously reserves the right to restrict its franchise to particular nationalities or citizens. We have always done that in this country. Voting in United Kingdom elections has always been open to citizens of the United Kingdom, citizens of the Irish Republic and certain Commonwealth citizens, but we do not give voting rights to other people who are nationals of other countries. Those who take up long-standing residence in this country and feel themselves to be deprived of the right to vote in general elections are always faced with the perfectly straightforward choice of whether to apply for British naturalisation, if they feel that they are excluded from—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My understanding of the rules of the House of Commons is that, when anything touches upon the Queen's prerogative or upon the Queen's majesty, a Minister of the Crown brings a statement to the House attesting that the Queen herself has no objection to the provision. I should be grateful for your ruling, Sir.

The Chairman: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes relates to the Second Reading or Third Reading of the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Let me make a little progress, arid then I shall give way again, I am sure.

Mr. Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. If that has not been signified at Second Reading, surely it has an implication for the subsequent Committee stage, when the Government go on to reduce or subordinate the Queen's position relative to the ultimate law-making authority within the Community, the European Court of Justice.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will have studied the Order Paper and looked at page 3397, which clarifies the position.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris. I do not believe that anything that I said touched upon the Queen's prerogative. I also believe that it has always been the position that the monarch of this country is subject to the law of this country, and has never sought to be otherwise.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Let me move on. There will be plenty of other opportunities for hon. Members to intervene.
We are at least beginning to deal with the practical rights which flow from European citizenship. I said that four new rights were established by this section of the treaty. The first is the right to vote in certain elections. The second is the right to consular protection in states where the member state of which a person is a national is not represented.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, under the treaty as it stands, the ex-leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), stood for election in Italy?

Mr. Clarke: British citizens have done so. Several member states of the European Community will not have to change their law to comply with this provision. In the past, there has been a disparity in practice between the 12 member states. As a result of the agreement, the United Kingdom is proposing to give new rights to vote in, and to stand as candidates at, municipal and European elections, Personally, I see no objection to that, if someone has established his right to residence here, especially when one remembers that the same right will be extended to the leader of the British Liberal party not only in Italy but in every other member state once the provision is in place.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to speak at some length on what he dismissed most airily as "the Danish point" in fearing a common European army. The preamble to the treaty clearly states that it was resolved
to implement a common foreign and security policy including the framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
It is not obvious that, if citizens of the new united Europe are all able to vote for an increasingly powerful European Parliament, it would be irresponsible for them to be able to vote for war without having to bear the

consequences of having to fight themselves or having their family fight? As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the cases of Casement and John Amery show the horrible dilemma of a person who has a citizenship of which he cannot dispose and which leads him to be tried for treason, in this case because of forced loyalty to a European identity which he might want nothing to do with.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend ingeniously seeks to read across from other provisions of the treaty dealing with foreign and security policy—perfectly properly—which are part of the so-called second pillar of Maastricht. The second pillar of Maastricht will proceed as the third pillar on interior and justice matters, by a process of intergovernmental co-operation requiring the unanimous consent of any of the members to a change of policy.
It is also plain that defence policy will proceed on the basis of developing the Western European Union as the European arm of NATO. It has repeatedly been the Government's policy to remain committed to NATO as the main arm of our western defence policy, the Western European Union being part of the European commitment to that. There is absolutely no suggestion of our Government, or any Government, contemplating forming a European army. There is no treaty obligation on us to do so. There is absolutely no question of this country being committed to war through a process to which we have not consented.
To go beyond that to the subject that we are now discussing, and to try to extract from it a fanciful notion that, under this part of the treaty, we are paving the way for conscription may have worked with a few gullible Danes, but it should not be seriously argued in the context of this debate. [Interruption.] I hear sounds of shocked outrage at that attack on the Danish nation—

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is not it disgraceful, and insulting to a foreign nation, to refer to its members as gullible? If you were to look in "Erskine May", would you not find that that is a remark that the Home Secretary should withdraw?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. Let me make it clear to hon. Members that we are to have a full debate on foreign and security matters a few days hence.

Mr. Clarke: I should make it clear—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) thinks that I said that all Danes are gullible, he plainly misheard me.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must not persist in standing when it is clear that the Secretary of State does not propose to give way. They must resume their seats.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Let me relate the point to the provision before us—

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: Let me first reply again to the points that are being pressed.
In so far as there were Danes who voted against Maastricht because they believed that there would be conscription to a European army, it remains my firm opinion that those Danes were gullible. They may indeed have been few, as I said. In so far as there are hon. Members of this House who believe that the provisions pave the way for conscription to a European army, they are extremely gullible—and again, they are few, in my opinion, in number. The position under the treaty is that there is no obligation to have conscription—

Mr. Budgen: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give himself a new intellectual treat? Will he turn to page 5 of the treaty, which, I remind him, is the page on which the preamble—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which he hasn't read."]—which I am sure he has now read—occurs. Will he explain to the House what this means:
the … framing of a common defence policy, which might"—

The Chairman: Order. Not this afternoon Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, you ruled out of order an hon. Member who wished to quote the preamble to the treaty. Moreover, you hinted earlier that reference to article J—the intergovernmental area relating to foreign policy—was not in order in a debate that concerns the duties of citizens. I put it to you, Sir, that the two are closely connected.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

The Chairman: Order. What I ruled out of order was the request by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to the Home Secretary to explain the preamble. Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, who were here at the time know that we had a full debate on the implications of the preamble. Moreover, elements of the preamble are covered by a whole host of amendments, and those relating to armies, armed forces and defence matters will be covered in later groups on foreign and security policy matters. That is my ruling, and that is all.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I be clear about this? Is it the position that we may discuss the advantages of European citizenship but are not allowed to discuss any of the potential disadvantages or obligations? That seems to be what your ruling implies.

The Chairman: I am here to serve the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is engaging in pure argument. The Committee has before it amendment No. 12; that is what the Committee is supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I think that we all understand the difficulties of trying to debate the Bill and the series of amendments with which we are confronted; they cover a great deal of ground, and many of them are interdependent and linked. I imagine that your ruling is not meant to signify that you regard the series of debates as essentially a series of mutually exclusive watertight compartments. The fact that a topic has been, or is about to be, debated principally in

connection with one group of amendments surely cannot preclude a reference to it for the purpose of illuminating the principal subject of another group of amendments. I understand that to be the purpose of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I hope that you will regard that, as in order, so long as it is not carried to the point when the principal subject of the debate becomes different.

The Chairman: If it was his intention to make an allusion or reference, the hon. Member was in order, but I did not understand that to be the implication of his suggestion. Otherwise, I confirm what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) says.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to the preamble to the treaty. I suggest that there is a direct connection between the amendment that is before the Committee and the preamble. The first part of article 8, which is the subject of the debate, says:
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.
The preamble to the treaty says:
Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries
That is followed immediately by the words quoted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. So there is not only an allusion but a clear link between the treaty preamble and article 8.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. He will clearly see the paragraph that says:
Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries.
It then goes on to another paragraph. The reference that the hon. Member quoted and I have re-quoted is in order. The next is not, apart from a passing reference or allusion to it. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you for clarifying the position, and I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that the temperature should cool a little. To ensure that I understand the will of the Committee, may I ask whether you are ruling, on reflection, that we may discuss the potential obligations of European citizenship? If so, the discussion of an evolving, and no doubt idealistic, European defence policy and even a European army are subjects that may impinge on the obligations of European citizenship.
That is the only limited point that is raised. I have known the views of my right hon. and learned Friend for 30-odd years and I appreciate that he is an idealistic supporter of the European ideal. I dare say that he would like his son to have the chance to fight and die for a European army. We are giving him an opportunity to explain all that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that, if hon. Members are rising to put points of order, they are new ones, because we have traversed the situation. References and allusions are acceptable.

Mr. Clarke: To restate my point, which is firmly based on the treaty—including the preamble and article 8—citizenship of the union involves no new duties on individuals beyond the existing duty, in so far as it is extended, to comply with European Community law, as


enforced where necessary on us all as individuals by the United Kingdom courts, and there is no new duty to take part in any European army. Indeed, there is no reference to a European army from beginning to end of the treaty.
If at a later stage—I shall not deal with the point in detail now—we return to the text of the treaty, I shall ask my hon Friends to bear in mind, when referring to page numbers, the fact that they are all using the British edition, whereas I am using the European Community's—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] The words are the same, but the page references are different.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Enthusiastic though the Secretary of State may be with his European credentials, I urge him to recall that the treaty that was laid before this Parliament in Cm 1934. No wonder, if he has not been reading that, he does not know much about it.

Mr. Clarke: I assure my hon. Friend that the text of the two are the same.
To return to what we are discussing, there are no new duties: there are a number of new rights. I have already referred to the first two rights—voting and consular protection abroad. The third is the right to petition the European Parliament, and the fourth is the right to apply to a European ombudsman.
I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said. I cannot believe that anybody could reject the concept of being given the right to petition the European Parliament or to apply to a European ombudsman. Indeed, I suspect that a large number of our critics in the Committee at present will take advantage of both those rights with considerable frequency, once they have accepted that they have become citizens of a European union when we have ratified the treaty.

Sir Richard Body: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he has spoken about duties as they exist at present? Can he give the Committee an assurance that no fresh duties will be imposed on our citizens in future as a result of a decision either of the European Court or of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Clarke: Any development of the European union would involve fresh treaty obligations. We have not yet ratified this treaty. The question of what future treaties might come along is a matter on which I certainly must not speculate. In effect, the duties that fall on us as a result of Britain's membership of the European Community, and any future membership of the European union, will arise from those legal obligations on us all to obey the law of the land.
As far as the law of the land will incorporate European legislation, either directly applicable or passed by the House to give effect to European directives, we all have a duty to follow it. If we do not follow the law, the United Kingdom courts, occasionally, with reference to the European Court on a point of difficulty, will in the end impose an obligation on us.

Mr. Winnick: The Home Secretary said there were no new existing duties. I do not understand that, but perhaps he will clarify the position for the Committee. The word "existing" does not appear in article 8.2. I am taking the position, if you like, before the treaty is put into force. The treaty makes it clear that there will be a common security policy.
If that is the case, why does the Home Secretary tell the Committee with such confidence that under no circumstances in future will a common security policy mean whatever may arise on the international scene, with duties and obligations imposed on British citizens which will arise from the treaty? How does the Home Secretary come to the conclusion that there will be no new existing duties? I do not understand that.

Mr. Clarke: I said that no new duties will be imposed on nationals of the United Kingdom as a result of the treaty, save the duties on us all to comply with the law as it evolves under the treaty. As for the reading of "security policy", I will not stray out of order, Mr. Morris.
The point of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is relevant to the so-called pillared approach from Maastricht, which has been fundamental in most of the debates that we have had. The second pillar of foreign and security policies and the third pillar, which we are now discussing, of justice and interior affairs are outside the competence of the European Community. They do not proceed subject to the institutions of the Community.
The Commission has no sole right to initiate foreign or security policies. It is not subject to the European Court of Justice. We are talking about provisions under which we co-operate Government to Government. So far as we enter into new policies or new obligations, it is by the unanimous consent of the member states.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I have not finished yet.
I should make it clear that it is open to us as a sovereign country to have a common foreign policy with our Community partners if we wish to enter into such a policy. For as long as I have been in the House, many people who are fairly sceptical about the European Community have often urged the virtues of a closer foreign policy among the members of the European Community.
The idea that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom or the foreign policy which the United Kingdom has agreed to in alliance with its allies and the rest of the European union imposes personal obligations and duites is extremely limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said a moment ago, it can be treason to work contrary to the United Kingdom's security policy.
Apart from that, however, I do not think that the matter is relevant. We should return to matters which are relevant to what we are now talking about. With great respect, it does not help the case against Maastricht when blatant red herrings are drawn across the trail, obscuring what European citizenship comprises.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I suggest to the Minister that he may well be wrong on this issue, because the possibility of a European army, which is decried, is not a red herring at all. There has been considerable discussion or thought about the establishment of a European defence force. In 1992, the Government and the Minister's Cabinet colleagues announced to the House that the British Army would be the lead unit, the core unit, of the rapid reaction force which will be established on a European basis.
Substantial arguments have been advanced on the establishment of a European defence force. If it is an army,


a navy or an air force, it is still a force. That does not detract from the Minister's argument, but he should get his facts right.

Mr. Clarke: We have a history. Let us simply take the post-war part. Parts of the various defence forces in the United Kingdom have been committed to NATO or deployed in alliance with our European neighbours. There is nothing new about that. So far as there have been such commitments, the British Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have been committed in that way. But I am being drawn out of order again.
No hon. Member can claim, while keeping a straight face, that we are entering into any obligation to merge our Army, our Air Force or our Navy with anyone else's army, air force or navy. The leap of imagination that goes beyond that—to say that people might be conscripted into any merged force—was an argument unworthy of the Danish referendum, and it should not be deployed here.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Surely there is every difference in the world between an alliance and obligations which follow from citizenship. I find it difficult to fathom this from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. I believe that he is against a formation of a new state of Europe, yet citizenship implies the formation of such a state. How does the Minister square those two matters?

Mr. Clarke: I am against the formation of a state of Europe. It seems that our arguments on the Bill are slightly beside that point. The most significant part of the Maastricht treaty is that the 12 member states abandoned any suggestion that they would go down the path towards a common state. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, having known each other very well over many years, in my case, any more is a change of mind on my part.
The idea of the founding fathers—to use that rather pompous phrase—who created the original treaty of Rome was that the institutions of that treaty would extend Community competence to wider fields of whatever sort. In.the end, one effectively has the institutions of a state with a common Parliament, a common court, a Council of Ministers, an embryonic Government and so on. In practice, that has not worked out in the past 20 years to the satisfaction of many people, most especially in the United Kingdom. As I sometimes say, the result is that we are all Gaullists now.
The Maastricht treaty, compared with all previous European agreements, marked a most sharp change of direction from the common institutions in the direction of extending what we now call a European union into new areas on a different basis of co-operation between sovereign Governments. Article 8, which we are now talking about, is part of establishing that co-operation by a variety of methods.
I see nothing wrong with the idea that article 8 refers to citizenship of a European union. It involves no derogation from our citizenship of the United Kingdom. Its practical consequence is to impose no new duties. It is to impose the four new rights. The people of the United Kingdom did not have two of those rights before, vis-a-vis the European

institutions. I see nothing in article 8 which is contrary to the Government's policy or the interests of the United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I hope to move shortly to a conclusion.[Interruption.] I will not give way simply to the hon. Member who shouts the loudest.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has reflected on the conflict of law. For instance, I cannot imagine the circumstances, but it is still held that Parliament may revoke our membership of the European Community. Under the provisions of the Bill, we are citizens of the union. My right hon. and learned Friend seems to be more uncertain about it, but my argument is that that is a superior citizenship, because the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent of the European union. Where does my allegiance and duty lie? Is it with the laws of the United Kingdom or with those of the European union? How would one resolve a conflict should it arise?

Mr. Clarke: I have not said at any point that I regard European citizenship as superior to British citizenship. The position remains that my hon. Friend, like me, remains a subject of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the courts of the United Kingdom. The courts of the United Kingdom will enforce the duties imposed on us by the laws of the European union, to which Britain will be adhered. So there is no great difficulty.
If my hon. Friend had the right, which he appears to want, to renounce European citizenship, he would not rid himself of any duties to which he might object, because no duties are imposed on him beyond those which we already contemplate. He would renounce the four new rights which I have advocated. We are discussing an attempt to build around that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: If hon. Members catch your eye, Mr. Morris, they may seek to enlarge the debate and read into the provisions of Article 8 things which are not there.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield and I have already sought to chase off many of the shadows. There is a great deal of talk of waving around documents, reading them and contemplating them. I recommend that my hon. Friends read article 8, in whatever edition they prefer— [Interruption.] It has become clear during these debates that I have not only read far more of the treaty, but have understood it with rather greater clarity, than most of my critics. I will listen to their points, but meanwhile I commend article 8 to the Committee, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield on tabling this probing amendment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall be brief because there is clearly a great deal of interest in article 8 among hon. Members on both sides of the House. By speaking in support of article 8, I shall by definition speak technically against the amendment. However, judging by the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I believe that he, at least, does not seek to press the amendment to a Division. What other sections of the parliamentary Labour party do will become clear later.
When we are discussing citizenship, it is important to remember what was pointed out earlier in the debate before the cacophony began which it is the speciality of the Home Secretary to whip up, especially among his hon. Friends. He did so when he served in other Departments and still does in his present Department. Before that cacophony got going, it was pointed out that it was up to the member states of the Community to define citizenship. That is an important prerequisite which comes in front of much of the argument or, if argument is not the right word, many of the points which have been swapped across the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment if she will let me complete this opening thought.
As we have seen from the balance in previous debates on this treaty-related legislation, not many of the hon. Members who have attended the debates subscribe to the notion of Europe. However, an increasing number of people—judging by the evidence of one's eyes—and especially younger people see Europe as a natural entity. Irrespective of article 8 and—with respect—what people may say at the Dispatch Box, young people already feel European. They class themselves as European and want to remain in that mould. In giving effect to that outlook for the future, article 8 does the right thing and the House will do the right thing by supporting it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer—

Mr. Kennedy: I never will be.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address the point in article 8.2 which has been carefully avoided by both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Home Secretary. What does the hon. Gentleman think is meant by:
Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby"?
Does he believe that in plain English that seems to say that citizens will not only enjoy the right, for example, to go to the European ombudsman but must respond to the obligations imposed? Is it not likely that all those European young people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers might be slightly less anxious about being European if they suddenly discovered that their future was to be determined by a large organisation in which they had a tiny say?

Mr. Kennedy: I am glad that the hon. Lady stressed that I was not a lawyer. By definition, my answer will be a lay person's response. It is a straightforward philosophical argument. Any set of rights which citizens enjoy in a nation state or any democratic set-up carries with it responsibilities. We argue about rights and responsibilities —two sides of the same coin—on a host of issues including the economy, domestic social policy and law and order. We argue time and again about the rights of individuals and the responsibilities that those rights carry with them. Article 8 is a classic example of that.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I shall first complete my answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Who knows, I may even satisfy the hon. Gentleman by fully responding to her point. I doubt it, but I shall try.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned the right to petition the European ombudsman. Let us assume that the treaty will be ratified by Britain and that at some point beyond the end of this year, a citizen of Britain petitions the ombudsman on some grievance. If the ombudsman upholds that grievance, the Government of the day or the institution involved will have to address that grievance and set it right. I am sure that any Member of Parliament would support that process if the grievance were legitimate.
Rights and responsibilities run in two directions. They are not all from the top down. The institutions which we are creating must have responsibilities in an accountable sense to the citizens of the member states and of the union as a whole. That side of the argument must be put robustly because it is correct and valid.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has many opportunities to speak so I should like to begin by giving way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

Mr. Gill: My question is short. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion as a layman, is the assertion that the Secretary of State made this afternoon that it is possible to create citizenship without creating a state correct? Is there any truth in that statement?

Mr. John Fraser: What about Commonwealth citizenship?

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has looked rather wider than I might have done to answer that question by saying that one can talk about Commonwealth citizenship. That is an adequate answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. There can be a category or classification of citizenship which goes beyond the nation state.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I give way to the hon. Gentleman because the show would not be complete without Punch.

Mr. Cash: That is very good, although I daresay that the hon. Gentleman would not particularly want to be called Judy. Does he agree that the discussion is not simply a matter of philosophy? He mentioned the idea that some obligations might arise in connection with the economy. He fails to understand that, under this title, citizenship comes within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the duties imposed by the treaty will be adjudicated upon by the European Court of Justice. The slithery attempt, which the hon. Gentleman has tried on the House, to get past that question by saying that our arguments are nitpicking legalese will not succeed.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the hon. Gentleman a simple and straightforward question. She asked whether he believed that duties would be imposed by the treaty. Will he answer that question?

Mr. Kennedy: The party of which I am a member can be accused of a range of things, and frequently is by both Conservative and Opposition Members, perhaps even on occasion with justice and correctness. But, in respect of matters European, we can hardly be accused of slithering. Let hon. Members recall the vote that took place here last November.
The longer this debate goes on, with arguments about very detailed legal definitions, the more we lose sight of the fact that political common sense must be applied. The political common sense of what has been negotiated and agreed, as well as the political circumstances surrounding the entire process since the original Maastricht weekend summit, suggests that some of the fears that have been raised are phantom fears, and the Home Secretary is correct in suggesting that they were introduced during the referendum in Denmark. There is no doubt that votes in Denmark were swung as a result. But these matters must be addressed in a sensible manner. I do not believe that there is some great design going beyond the art of the possible and the politically deliverable, not just at Community level but at the level of individual member states. That is the way in which we should approach the issue.

5 pm

Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as the Home Secretary. It has been suggested that the Danish voters were misled by a rumour about the establishment of a European army. The fact is that European countries have already got together and decided that a European defence force would be a good thing. A rapid reaction force has been set up, with Britain as the lead country. That is not a bad thing. Indeed, it may well be a good thing.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not levelling that accusation; such suggestions have come from other quarters. But let us take the obvious comparison of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Note the word "Treaty". Tragically, in the name of NATO, a British service man was recently killed on active service. That person was a member of the British armed services, which are committed to NATO under the terms of that treaty. It is a treaty to which this country gave its name and to whose implementation, in terms of pursuance of the law, as seen by successive Governments, troops have been committed.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is extremely courteous.
I should like to put to him the fundamental point that NATO is an association of free and independent sovereign states and that there is no NATO citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out, history contains no instance of the conferring of citizenship on an individual other than by a state or by an empire, such as the British empire, the Roman empire or the Soviet empire. There is no such thing as Commonwealth citizenship. Commonwealth nationals resident in this country have the citizenship of the nations to which they belong, and we choose freely to grant to them certain rights and privileges of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Perhaps, if he catches your eye later, Mr. Morris, we shall hear his argument

developed more fully. In the meantime I am having the greatest difficulty in understanding the focus of his comments.
Let us consider the United Kingdom itself. In this regard my remarks are directed not at Labour Members who are hostile, concerned or critical in respect of this matter but at Government Members, who are members of the Conservative and Unionist party. I am a Scot. I am from a country with a distinct culture, a distinct education system, a different Church and a different legal system. Some Scots are happy, and some are not, but we are represented in the United Kingdom Parliament and contribute as a part of the kingdom.
Some Scots like the idea of dual citizenship. For example, the late Iain Macleod always entered "Scottish" in the nationality column of hotel registers. Some Scots feel Scottish in some contexts but British in others. Different instincts may prevail at different times. But that does not make either identity less valid than the other—a point that has been missed entirely in respect of European citizenship, which is regarded as an element of this union. What we have here is a question of confidence in one's personal and national identity. If, in this respect, the European level can be furthered, so much the better.
On the question of the definition of citizenship, we welcome recognition of the reality of freedom of movement and freedom of employment. Then there is the question of voting rights—something that exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides. In this context, there has been discussion of the meaning of "municipal". I have not seen the legal ruling that has been referred to, but I am somewhat reassured by the Home Secretary's remarks about what was in mind when the treaty was being drafted.
In this regard, two further points ought to be made for the benefit of those who are critical of the right to vote in local—I shall not use the word "municipal"—or European parliamentary elections. There is no doubt that that is a significant extension of rights and of their political effects on individual member states. However, it remains open to the electorate in any constituency, whether in a local election or in a European parliamentary election, to cast their votes as they please. If people are not satisfied that a candidate from another member state is sufficiently local to represent them properly, they may vote for someone else.
In this regard, I agree with what was said about my right hon. Friend the former leader of the Liberal party, who, as a matter of principle, put the theory to the test in Italy some years ago and was rejected at the ballot box. It was his right to exercise that freedom under Italian law, as it was the right of Italian voters not to accept him as a parliamentary representative.

Mr. Cash: With regard to the word "municipal", the European Court of Justice said in 1972:
the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law, whatever their nature, can be legally invoked.
It is quite clear that, in that context, "municipal" means national.

Mr. Kennedy: As I have already said, I am not a lawyer, but that definition is very legalistic and forensic. I am not in a position—certainly not off the top of my head—to discuss "municipal" in this context and come up with something authoritative. No doubt the hon. Gentleman


has himself sought legal opinion, and we look forward to hearing what it is. I am quite sure that he would not have raised the matter in this way without having satisfied himself. We look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Fraser: As distinct from international law, which is law governing several countries, municipal law means domestic law and has nothing whatever to do with local authorities.

Mr. Kennedy: For the second time during my short contribution, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I do not wish to go beyond the bounds of this group of amendments, Mr. Morris, but article 8 carries with it an extension of voting rights and opportunities. That is an important constitutional and political development and it is fundamental. It is a matter of principle and is one of the reasons why I take the view that the British public should have the opportunity to cast its verdict on the treaty, outwith the normal scope of a general election, as and when we have completed the procedures and processes of this House. That is why we should have a referendum and that is why I shall cast my vote in favour of the opportunity for such a process, as and when we get that right.
Although I differ entirely some hon. Members on their analysis of the viewpoint, I recognise that the issue is one of principle and as such goes beyond the normal confines of party politics.

Mr. Toby Jessel: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: This will be the last intervention that I shall allow, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extension of voting rights in local municipal elections and elections for the European Parliament to people from the continent, as the treaty refers to both. Does he not think that that could be the thin end of the wedge for a proposal to extend voting rights to foreigners in parliamentary general elections, which could distort the result in a way that most of us would not want?

Mr. Kennedy: I stand open to correction, but I think that citizens of the Irish Republic have voting rights in United Kingdom general elections. If it is the thin end of the wedge—to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase—then it was not inserted by anything decided at Maastricht, but has been accepted in the House for decades. If hon. Members are so concerned about the breach or the establishment of that principle, why did they not try to deal with it through all the procedures open to them as Back Bench Members of Parliament, such as ten-minute Bills, Adjournment debates, private Members' motions and all the rest? Why has it suddenly become such a fear when it is suggested as a part of the Maastricht treaty? I do not accept that argument.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Kennedy: No, I gave a fair response to the previous intervention and I wish to finish now.
In conclusion, it is interesting that the concept of citizenship is assuming increasing salience in domestic and international politics among the centre-left or reformist politicians—whichever terminology one chooses–—as opposed to the traditionalists. It is being much debated

within the Labour party. When Governor Clinton was running for President he stressed the sense of empowerment and of the citizen being able to assume more rights and as a result have more access to activities within his or her country. Definitions of citizenship have become a subject and focus of debate in the Liberal and Labour parties as well as elsewhere in this country.
The present Foreign Secretary, as Home Secretary under the former leader of the Conservative party, set out his views of "active citizenship" in the United Kingdom. Clearly, citizenship is a political idea whose time has come. That being the case, it is appropriate for it to be highlighted in article 8 of the treaty. The article is partly practical, and it points towards greater political and institutional integration. It points in a more federal direction and I welcome that. The article is also partly philosophical because it deals with citizenship and begins to redefine and consider the notion of the nation state freshly and more fully. As such, I believe that the article commands our support and we are pleased to welcome it as part of the legislation before us.

Mr. Wilkinson: I suspect that this apparently insignificant but detailed debate may, with hindsight, turn out to be one of the turning points in our debate on the Bill. If people outside this place fully comprehended what the proposed treaty of European union will do to their identity, they would call into question the legitimacy of what the Government are calling upon the House to endorse.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who is the long spokesman for the Liberal party on such matters and a great enthusiast for Europe—as we all are—shed a ray of candour on our proceedings when he said that the issue of citizenship was so important that it merited a referendum.
I had my Damascus road conversion on the proposed treaty of European union when those "gullible Danes" —as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary so enchantingly put it—in their considered majority rejected their Government's proposal that the treaty should be ratified. The British people are not gullible. If they had the chance—as they certainly deserve—they would vote against a citizenship of the union as proposed in article 8 of the treaty.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that, in his frank speech—which I was pleased to listen to when he called for a referendum—the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty, and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) made it clear that he had limited time for the nation state?
Is it not clear that the ardent federalists in this House, not least the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—who has stated time and time again that he is in favour of a federal arrangement—are keen on the treaty because they understand that is it the paving stone to reach that state, whereas the Home Secretary and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman refuse to concede that fact? Would it not be more frank of the Government to say that outright, rather than trying to mislead the Committee and the British public, which cannot be forgiven?

Mr. Wilkinson: That may be so: I would not seek to gainsay the hon. Gentleman. It is instructive to note that the title of part II, which contains article 8, is "Citizenship


of the Union". It does not even say "citizenship of the European Community". The word "community" gives the sense of a free association of sovereign states. The title suggests citizenship of a union—a political entity, a new creation. It is a highly centralised creation. It is not even a federation, with proper checks and balances between the constituent elements and the centre, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred. It is a union—a centralised united states of Europe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): There is nothing in the treaty to imply that the union is taking on the essential attributes of statehood. The union has no legal personality. It has to act through those of its component parts which have a legal personality—the communities —whenever there is a question of giving rights enforceable in law. That is why the citizenship provisions are included in the Community treaty. They are there, rather than in intergovernmental provisions. The union does not have a legal personality.

Mr. Wilkinson: I did not know that I was being so provocative. I thought that I was merely stating the truth.

Mr. Gill: Is not the question, do the British people believe what the Minister has said? Does the Committee believe what the Minister has said? If it does not, the Government have got it wrong, and those of us who are opposed to the treaty have got it right.

Mr. Wilkinson: We are not permitted to know the answer, because the British people have not been allowed to exercise their judgment on that crucial issue—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yet.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We should have a referendum.
Article 8.1 of the treaty states:
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.
Citizenship is precious to us. It is an attribute most dear to an individual, and primarily acquired by virtue of birth. If it is not acquired by birth, citizenship is acquired by conscious and carefully considered application—in this country by a process of naturalisation.
I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, have been involved in many such cases, and may have had to affirm as a Member of Parliament that an applicant was worthy of British citizenship. Therefore, you will know that it is something that our state considers important.
It is so important that I well recall sitting along into the night during the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, when the issue of citizenship was considered at great length as we thought that it could not lightly be given away. We thought that British citizenship was being abused and that we should be careful to whom we should grant it. The signatories of the proposed treaty of European union are not careful—by fiat and edict, they think that they can bestow it on anybody, whether or not he or she wishes it, so long as the individual happens to hold citizenship of a European Community country.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not an insult to the concept of citizenship if people are obliged to have it whether or not they want it?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: What about the citizens charter?

Mr. Marlow: Yes: if my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were to look at the citizens charter, he would see the value bestowed on it—a value that will be devalued by the Bill.

Mr. Wilkinson: That is true. The only other means whereby, historically, citizenship has been acquired has been by a process of conquest. That is how citizenship has traditionally been imposed on those who did not wish to assume it voluntarily.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is not building an elegant tower on shaky sand. It seems that the vast majority of citizens of the union have been born within the European Community. If they have the sort of citizenship that makes them eligible for citizenship of the union, it will have been bestowed on them with the same sort of care as that shown when bestowing citizenship on British citizens.

Mr. Wilkinson: As usual, my hon. Friend attributes the best of motives to those involved. That has been the trouble throughout the passage of the legislation. We have all been bored into attributing the best of motives to those who have enjoined us to ratify the legislation, but it is not our job to be gullible. Our job is to subject the proposed legislation to the most careful scrutiny and make people outside realise exactly what is at stake, so that, even if they do not rise up with sticks and staves, they rise up in anger at what is proposed and say that their birthright is worthy of protection. Those people are willing to accept another citizenship, but only if it is their democratic desire so to do, as expressed by their majority will in a referendum.

Mr. Spearing: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it was not easy to scrutinise the legislation because the Home Secretary used his favourite device of provoking a riot and retiring under the protection of the procedural police?
I wish to raise the issue of citizens' reponsibilities to the Crown in the armed services, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) may have knowledge. If the Crown is subject to a single authority in relation to foreign security policy, and therefore its military consequences—which it is—is the citizen serving the Crown as determined by Ministers of the House, supported by Parliament? Or is it the case that, in the words of the treaty in article J.5:
The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy"?
Will they not serve the president of the union for the six-month period, rather than the Crown responsible to the House?

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a nice point, and one to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought vainly to reply. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought to provoke a riot—I cannot imagine anybody less likely to provoke a riot. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have known each other, and I have had the privilege of being his hon. Friend on and off, since about 1970, and he is a man with whom it is difficult to take issue, as one instinctively warms to him. However, I do not instinctively warm to his arguments on the issue under discussion, and I am not gullible.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretaryof State is a nice person, and in case he is in danger of being gullible on the issue of citizenship—like my right hon. And learned Friend the Home Secretary—I ask him to read the EC Commission's report on citizenship, published in a supplement on 21 October 1990. It stated that European citizenship as in the treaty was
the setting of targets for the definition of an individual's civic, economic and social rights at a later stage.
Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Commission and Parliament that that is an important issue, not an insignificant one as has been suggested?

Mr. Wilkinson: The supplement does contain that statement. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was trying to distinguish between the respective applicability to citizens of the union of those parts that are strictly within the competence of the treaty, with relevance to the European Community, and those parts that lie within intergovernmental co-operation—defence and security policy. All I shall say on the second category is that, although the preamble has no legal effect and is not justiciable—

Mr. Budgen: It is important to state that it is almost certain that the preamble is justiciable and something that the European Court of Justice is obliged to take into account. When we consider that the European Court of Justice describes itself in political terms as the agent for greater federalism, we see that my hon. Friend has made no small mistake.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has clarified that issue. If he is right, the resolution in the preamble
to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence
is germane to those citizens of the union who, through no fault of their own, find themselves with an additional citizenship conferred by article 8 of the treaty.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend should also read the concluding phrase:
thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and the world".
Plainly, the identity of a state is enhanced by a single army. That is a way of reinforcing the European identity. Independence plainly means the independence of Europe not only from other nation states but from subordinate nation states below it.
It is no good saying that the preamble is a vague aspiration. It is part of the legislation, and it will be the basis of the discussions in 1996 when the EC settles down for a further period of what it calls steady progress towards a federal union.

Mr. Wilkinson: I will not follow my hon. Friend's detailed points, except to say that, in my lay judgment, the citizens of the union will in effect have the rights and obligations normally associated with the citizens of a single state. That, at least, is how I read the treaty.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of military and defence matters, and he and I have often debated them here over the past few years. I am sure that he will recall the establishment of the rapid

reaction force, which was intended to be the precursor of an army in which every citizen of the Community and every country of the Community would take up their obligations. Time and again we have argued that it would be better if not only France and Britain but the rest of the European Community took up certain international obligations.
Conservative Members who have raised the spectre of such an army are absolutely right, and the Home Secretary is wrong. This is indeed the beginning of a development towards a European army, but I remind Conservative Members that they welcomed the statement in which the Secretary of State for Defence announced the establishment of a rapid reaction force, and that more than once they have advocated the deployment of joint forces from Europe—especially in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia.

Mr. Wilkinson: That was interesting, but I will not pursue it. I am more interested in the citizenship aspect, which is strictly relevant to this group of amendments.
A more exact parallel was shown by the judgment of the French National Assembly when, in 1954, it rejected the proposed European defence community, recognising that a unified European army was a step too far for the citizens of France—just as this treaty is a step too far for our citizens, unless they are given the opportunity, as they morally should be, to express their will in a referendum. If they are not given that chance, Her Majesty's Government will show themselves either undemocratic in this matter or exhibiting a rare lack of confidence about the outcome.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that my hon. Friend had made a mistake in thinking that the preamble was not justiciable. May I reassure my hon. Friend that he is in good company? When we debated the Single European Act, Baroness Chalker, as she now is, speaking for the Government, was repeatedly questioned on whether the preamble had any meaning or justiciability. She said that it did not. She was wrong, just as my hon. Friend is wrong. So, although we have been reassured time after time by Ministers that all our anxieties about citizenship are as dross, we should beware.

Mr. Wilkinson: Again, I do not intend to pursue my hon. Friend's historical allusion, except to say that, in a number of instances important matters of fact and of principle have not been dealt with by Ministers, who have relied on the closure and the sheer weight of votes to close the argument. I hope that you, Mr. Lofthouse, will permit us the time that the importance of this group of amendments merits.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend creates a great deal of interest by his protestations against closures and the authoritarian behaviour that has so often marred and marked discussion of this Bill. My hon. Friend gives us to understand that parliamentary democracy is not working in these circumstances. Even those of us who, in general, dislike referendums are coming round to the belief, albeit reluctantly, that one may be necessary in this case.

Mr. Wilkinson: Indeed. I was going to say, in the context of the first paragraph of article 8, that the parallels to which I referred earlier, dealing with how citizenship has traditionally been conferred, are historically correct: that is, by birth, by naturalisation, by registration in the case of Commonwealth citizens, or by conquest. There was a time


when the very word "subjecthood" encapsulated the status of those who possessed British citizenship. It was the same sort of status as that to which St. Paul referred when he stood up and said, "Civis Romanus sum". It was his assurance that he would be subject to the due processes of Roman law.
With citizenship goes the right to deny oneself citizenship—to give it up. The Home Secretary suggested that the only way in which a European national could renounce his European citizenship was to renounce the nationality of his birth or the nationality that he acquired by naturalisation. That is most unsatisfactory. The treaty should provide for renunciation of citizenship.
It is very broad in scope:
Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union".
I should like to hear what Home Office Ministers have to say about British overseas citizens—an important category. We in this Parliament decided that those who had some connection with the United Kingdom for historical reasons—British subjects of Asian origin living in East Africa, say—should have this category of overseas British citizenship bestowed on them. That would be useful, in as much as they would have a British passport of a kind, but it would not entitle them to residence in the United Kingdom.
That is an important distinction, which the treaty does not mention. I therefore take it that, under the treaty, British overseas citizens would have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and duties as other British nationals. I presume, too, that British overseas territories citizens would have the same rights and duties. It is an extremely important point, because of the immigration and freedom of movement aspects of the proposed treaty of union.
I assume that, with European union citizenship, people with British overseas citizenship could go to France or to another European Community country and establish residence there. It would be interesting to see how the courts decided whether such people could move to the United Kingdom. The first such case would be fascinating. Many Chinese people in Macao hold Portuguese nationality. I assume that, as citizens of the union, they could, if they wanted to, come here. Perhaps 5 million Hong Kong Chinese cannot come here, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) tells me that 100,000 Chinese from Macao with Portuguese nationality and thereby European citizenship could come here. That is interesting and important.

Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend argues that European citizenship should be capable of renunciation by those who do not wish to hold it any longer. I am puzzled by that argument, because it would mean that European citizenship was independent of the citizenship of EC nation states. That would mean that European citizenship would have its own status, independent of the independent state to which the person also belonged.
That would confer on European citizenship a status similar to the kind that I understood my hon. Friend was arguing against, the citizenship of an independent unit— the European Community. Therefore, it is illogical to demand that a citizen should be able to give up that

citizenship when it must and should be entirely dependent upon his citizenship of another European Community country.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend touches on an interesting point. A person holding British nationality and residing in this country should be able to exercise choice about whether to acquire that additional nationality. It is not for a Government, by virtue of a treaty that they happened to sign in a small town in Holland, to decide to confer on all British nationals a new citizenship, unless of course the majority of those citizens so desire in a referendum. Likewise, in all equity they should have the right to renounce citizenship that has been conferred upon them, especially if it has been conferred without their express authority, democratically given in a referendum.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the hon. Gentleman's response to that intervention, may I ask whether he is saying that a United Kingdom citizen, a professional soldier in our armed forces who finds that his unit is being committed to the United Nations to perform, for example, peacekeeping duties, can say, "No, I do not agree. I am quite willing to be a British soldier, but I am not prepared to wear a blue helmet and serve on behalf of the United Nations, because I did not support the treaty which instituted that state of affairs." That is the logical corollary to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Wilkinson: In no sense is that a logical deduction from what I said. I think that the hon. Gentleman had to be out of Committee when I referred to his speech and his false allusion to NATO. There is no comparison between NATO, a free association of independent, sovereign states, and the European union in terms of conferring obligations on citizens.
It is noteworthy that NATO is such a free association of independent states that the French, since De Gaulle's time, have decided, in their own sovereign manner, to remain independent of NATO's integrated military structure. NATO has always been a free association of independent states and quite different from the union. Certainly it never had citizenship; nor did it confer obligations on citizens of member states.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. NATO was established by treaty, and as a result we have obligations to it. It is true that some members, such as France, opted out of some responsibilities, in exactly the same way as the Government opted out of some of their responsibilities under Maastricht—for example, the social chapter. I wish that we could get away from the irrelevant argument about citizenship in terms of defence-related security, which we shall discuss under another group of amendments. It ill becomes a party which has subscribed to these international organisations and which has waved the flag time and time again now to start knocking it down.

Mr. Wilkinson: I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman on this—far from it. It has not been my desire to bring the debate so dominantly to the issue of military obligations. We have taken up some time on that, but only because some hon. Members remain confused about what the obligations of citizens of the union may be in that regard. That is because of the unclear and unsatisfactory dichotomy between those aspects of the


treaty that fall within the ambit of the Community and those that fall within the ambit of intergovernmental co-operation. I shall gladly move on—I am sure that you, Mr Lofthouse, will be pleased at that.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the Scottish, Welsh and Irish examples. I was elected as a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, and nothing made me sadder than when the Conservative party broke from Unionist party in 1972 upon the dissolution of Stormont, against which I voted. The great distinction is that there has already been a democratic process in all three of those parts of the kingdom. At various times, they each had a referendum about their status in the United Kingdom. There was one in Northern Ireland, and at the time of the Bill on devolution there was one in Scotland and one in Wales.
I agree that those soundings of opinion may have been unsatisfactory. Perhaps they were not ideal, and the wording may not have been perfect, but our citizens in those parts of the kingdom at least had a chance to exercise their right to vote. What is so different and wrong today is that all the people in our country are not to have the chance to express an opinion about whether they wish to be citizens of the European union.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How many hundreds of letters has the hon. Gentleman had from his constituents demanding to become members of the union of Europe?

Mr. Wilkinson: I look forward to receiving the first. When it arrives, I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, so that I may read it to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office. It will he quite an historic document.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and wide-ranging speech. I am sure that he will come to that aspect of the treaty which allows our constituents to petition the European Parliament. I am sure that he is aware that, as they do so, article 138c will apply. That important article, of which I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware, allows 25 per cent., a mere quarter, of European parliamentarians to set up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged—I stress "alleged"—contraventions in the implementation of Community law.
If we are not seen to be applying Community law, a petitioner from my hon. Friend's constituency could go over his head to the European Parliament and, on the basis of a mere 25 per cent., an inquiry could be set up to investigate why this country was not applying the law of citizenship in the way that European institutions might, at a later stage, decide.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his intervention helps me to make progress and to move on to article 8a.

Mr. Corbyn: Before leaving this matter, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that there is a real problem in Europe that is not dealt with in the documents, by the Commission or by the European Parliament? Large numbers of people who are nationals of non-European member states enjoy no political rights in Europe, but that is not dealt with in the treaty. That is especially so in the case of Germany, where it is virtually impossible for a non-German to gain German nationality.
Such people are very much second-class citizens and will remain so in the European union envisaged by Maastricht. Should not that issue be dealt with, as it involves the civil rights of people throughout the world?

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to such an important point. It would have been a great mistake to move on too quickly and to overlook it. He and I have a mutual family interest in this matter.
An aspect of equity is involved. In the old days, the position was anomalous, because Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic—although it left the Commonwealth in 1949—enjoyed all the rights of British nationals without having to obtain British citizenship. In those days—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would call them the bad old days— European Community citizens did not enjoy those rights. It was an extraordinary position, because Commonwealth nationals from, perhaps, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who spoke no English could vote in European parliamentary elections, while European Community nationals could not.
Even if, by some misfortune, the treaty were to be ratified—every hour that passes on the international exchanges makes it look less likely—there would still be an injustice. Citizens of the United States, of Canada and of other non-Community European countries who are resident in Britain, fulfilling all the qualifications for the franchise, would be unable to enjoy it even though they use as many local government services as, for example, European Community nationals also resident in Britain. The question is only partially and inadequately dealt with in the treaty.
Paragraph 2 of article 8a contains the real impetus behind the provisions. The driving force for making the citizenship provisions work is not the national Parliaments, not the national electorates and not the will of the people; it is the Council of Ministers. How will the Council be impelled to do what it collectively believes to be right? It will not be in response to popular will or to the wishes of constituents exercised through hon. Members in this place—it will he by a proposal from the Commission.
It is not we, Members of this sovereign imperial Parliament at Westminster, who will be consulted; it will be the Members of the European Parliament at Strasbourg. As you will know from your lengthy experience, Mr. Lofthouse, it is an extremely remote body. I doubt whether Members of the European Parliament receive more than 10 or 20 letters a week—probably only half the amount that we receive every day. They certainly have little opportunity to see their constituents and, sadly, their constituents see little of them.

Mr. Jessel: They do not know who they are.

Mr. Wilkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend has the misfortune to be poorly represented in the European Parliament. The Member of the European Parliament who represents me is also a Member of the other place, so I see him frequently. It is a good example of the benefits of the old system, when Members of the European Parliament could also be Members of the British Parliament. There was a much better cross-fertilisation and Members of the European Parliament were more realistic. Indeed, they


would have been more realistic about citizenship issues, because they would have been better in touch with the ordinary electorate. The same applies to article 8b.
I have no quarrel with article 8c. It is common decency that European Community countries should afford consular access to nationals of other Community countries that happen to have no representation in a particular third country. It is right that, between civilised nations, humanitarian assistance should be given to those in distress. That is spelt out in the treaty in belt-and-braces fashion.
Article 18 would give every citizen of the European union the right to petition the European Parliament. British citizens have known since time immemorial that they have the right to petition our Parliament—and not just to petition it, but to come here to see us, and even to badger us if need be. We are the most accessible legislators in the world.
That cannot be said of Members of the European Parliament. Apart from anything else, they are always on the move and we cannot catch up with them. One week they may be in Strasbourg, the next in Luxembourg and the next in Brussels. If we are lucky, we might catch up with them in the lounge at Frankfurt airport. That position does not inspire confidence.

Mr. Rowe: It is another example of how Maastricht has adopted another good British practice for the edification of the other 11 countries that have not, thus far, aspired to such good practice.

Mr. Wilkinson: That is right. If the European Parliament betters itself by a process of osmosis, that is all to the good. I am not belittling that. I was trying to show that, time and again in the treaty, on the most sensitive matter of citizenship, the Maastricht signatories must defer not to national Parliaments but to the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. There is hardly a word in the treaty about national Parliaments and their role.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is treating the Committee to a careful examination and perusal of article 8, but he passed quickly over article 8b(2), which concerns arrangements for voting in European elections. They shall be decided on a proposal from the Commission, through the Council of European Parliament. There is the possibility of a derogation, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the derogation is always time-barred and time-limited. Is my hon. Friend an enthusiast of proportional representation? If not, he may find that it will be imposed on the United Kingdom by that measure.

6 pm

Mr. Wilkinson: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. In my strong desire to make progress, I overlooked that important point—as I did in respect of article 8b, where the same applies to municipal elections: arrangements
may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State.
Again, there could be moves in the Community to harmonise elections for municipalities on, for example, a proportional representation basis—which would be anathema to most right hon. and hon. Members, who

believe that the strong connection between the councillor and his ward electorate is crucial to the satisfactory functioning of our democracy.
It would also be damaging for European Parliament elections to be by proportional representation, which I am sure is the desire of the majority of Community member states. It is important for our citizens not to go down that road but for this country to obtain the derogation to which my hon. Friend alluded.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My hon. Friend has several times denigrated the role of the European Parliament. He was very rude about it, despite the fact that a number of MEPs are members of our party, and presumably are not subject to the kind of criticisms that my hon. Friend was offering? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the declarations on the role of national parliaments in the European Union and on the conference of the parliaments, proposed on page 127 of the treaty? They would solve many of the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Mr. Wilkington: I must resist the temptation to respond, because I am trying to stick strictly to the amendments on citizenship, and not deal with matters relating to the place to which my hon. Friend so dearly aspires.
Article 8e states:
The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council, and to the Economic and Social Committee"—
a body of bureaucrats, not a national parliament—
on the application of the provisions of this Part.
In other words, it will report on progress in the matter of European citizenship.
That is, once again, a fundamentally undemocratic procedure, which flies in the face of the natural obligation of the signatories to the treaty to recognise that sovereign national parliaments are the custodians of the most dear and sacred rights of their citizens—the rights of citizenship.

Mr. Fraser: I support the treaty's proposals for union citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, although it is currently nothing more than a symbol, it is an important token of membership of a multinational, multilingual and multi-faceted community.
Two of my three children were able to work and live in the Community without work permits or restrictions on their ability to move about. Many members of the younger generation find it extremely difficult to understand the narrow nationalism portrayed by so many of the artificialities and distortions that I have heard from Conservative Members over three days.
To the younger generation, the restrictions on individual citizenship and divisions between European countries have become archaic. The symbolism provided by citizenship of a greater Community should be welcome. I represent a multilingual, multiracial and multi-coloured constituency. If people have both a United Kingdom and a United Kingdom and European union citizenship— albeit that it will give them only nominal rights in other countries initially—that will diminish the divisions that have proved dangerous in society and in the world.
It is important to have at the beginning—the word "beginning" is what matters—formal but tangible recognition of the rights of European Community citizens in the Community.

Sir Richard Body: rose—

Mr. Fraser: Having sat here for three days, I made a promise to myself not to give way to any Euro-bores—but perhaps just this once.

Sir Richard Body: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency, as I have, a large number of Irish people. They have the opportunity to vote for him, although they are not citizens of this country. I see no reason why that principle should not be extended throughout the Community. I would welcome that. It does not mean that we must have a supranational citizenship imposed upon us, with accompanying future duties and obligations of which we do not know.

Mr. Fraser: It will probably be best if I continue with my own speech.
Although it is only a beginning, that is no reason to vote against it. Citizens ought to have enforceable and equal rights. One of the first times that I voted against my own Government was in 1968, when the concept of United Kingdom citizenship was being diminished in relation to Kenyan Asians. If we are to have European citizenship, it must be meaningful.
There are three deficiencies in the union citizenship that the treaty promulgates. The first is specific and regrettable —the omission of the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Under the treaty, people will have the right to vote in municipal elections—that is, local government elections, in case Conservative Members do not understand the meaning of the word "municipal". They will also have the right, not surprisingly, to stand for election to the European Parliament and to vote in European elections.
It would be crazy to be a citizen of the Community and not to have those rights. Those who live, work and currently reside in another member state should have the right to vote in parliamentary elections also, and that right ought to be conferred by the treaty. It is completely incomprehensible that a German, Italian or Greek can live, work and reside in my constituency for his entire lifetime but not have the chance to vote in a parliamentary election, whereas the Government can give the right to a person who has lived on the costa del crime for the past 12 years, or who left this country because he did not like it and now resides in South Africa, to get on the electoral role and to play a part in British parliamentary elections. It is extraordinary that the latter can happen, yet a fellow European citizen who has worked here and lived here, even if not for his entire life, cannot play a part in parliamentary elections.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: rose—

Mr. Fraser: No, I will not give way.
My second point relates to immigration and dependency rights. I believe that, if there is to be a right of union citizenship, the rights attaching to such citizenship should be equal, and should be harmonised. At present, a rather odd distinction exists. If an Italian, a Frenchman or a German living in this country—and exercising his economic rights in the Community—should marry, no primary purpose rule will apply to the marriage: under European law, that person's wife can remain with him. If they want to bring their children under the age of 21 to this country, they can do so. Indeed, they have the right to bring their grandparents, and any other relatives.
That right, enjoyed by other European Community citizens, is superior to the right currently held by United Kingdom citizens. Surely there is a deficiency in a citizenship that does not harmonise the rights involving dependants. I want those rights to be harmonised upwards rather than downwards—and the Government, in the intergovernmental conference, seem to be trying to harmonise them downwards.
Let me now deal with what I consider to be the principal deficiency. I believe that the Rome treaty, as amended by the Single European Act—it is, of course, to be amended further by the Maastricht treaty—is seriously deficient, in that it does not contain a declaration of principle, and does not confer a specific competence in relation to freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, colour, national origins or social status. Generally speaking, all those grounds are mentioned in the European convention on human rights and the United Nations charter on the subject. For the sake of brevity, I shall call them the "freedom from racial discrimination" grounds, although the definition in the convention is rather wider.
We are discussing the creation of a reality from article 8, which concerns the freedom to reside and to move freely. A person subject to discrimination in regard to housing, for instance, cannot reside freely in another country.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Article F says:
The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.

Mr. Fraser: That, I believe, is in the preamble to the treaty. I am arguing that the provisions should be rather more specific. It is true that the preamble contains a reference to the convention; it is possible that articles 100 and 235 confer a competence, and that the social chapter does the same, although very marginally. What I want is a specific reference in the treaty, as an adjunct to citizenship rights, to the elimination of discrimination; the treaty should both make a declaration and provide the necessary machinery.
That is done elsewhere in the treaty. Article 119 is specific about women's rights in relation to equal pay. From that article developed the equal pay directive, which in part had already been translated into English domestic law but whose translation was then completed. I believe that one of the concomitants of union citizenship should be a provision similar to article 119, which would deal with racial discrimination and would enable the Commission —by way of a directive—to develop the machinery to make a declaration of principle enforceable.
If I am to remain in order, I must make a speech about citizenship. Let me make it clear, however, that, if I were out of order, I would be arguing for a general freedom from discrimination, irrespective of citizenship. I had better say that in case I am thought to be leaving out the question of migrant workers and those without European citizenship.

Mr. Corbyn: Do not the Maastricht treaty and the whole thrust of European thinking and legislation completely ignore the political rights of 15 million people who live and work on the continent of Europe, many of


whom are refused nationality in their own countries? None of the legislation is addressed to them. Maastricht will make the current two-tier residence in Europe worse rather than better.

Mr. Fraser: I agree. I think that the rights of migrant workers—and those of people who are simply dependants —should be exactly the same as those of citizens. I should have liked to speak about that in relation to the social chapter. One of the most regrettable features of the Government's failure to support the social chapter is the fact that the country has been robbed of the authority, and the credibility, to press the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the context of the chapter. Although the treaty may contain competences and declarations elsewhere, opting out of the social chapter makes it much more difficult to argue that the Commission should initiate legislation in which the Government wish to play no part.
Although there is no constitutional right in this country to be free from racial discrimination—because we have no constitution, although, of course, we are party to the European convention on human rights—we have done rather well. When I first represented my constituency—being a multiracial constituency, it has been racked with riots—discrimination was blatantly exercised. I believe that it is a happier constituency, and that this is a happier country, since the introduction of the Race Relations Act. We have a good record. It is no good just stating principles; the machinery must be created, in this country and in the Community, to turn those principles into reality.
Other countries have built such principles into their constitutions. The very phrase "liberty, equality, fraternity" must imply freedom from racial discrimination. Every other member of the European Community has acceded to the European declaration on human rights, and all of them—unlike Britain—have imported it into their domestic law. We, who have not adopted the constitutional principle, have done better than the countries which have not. That gave us an authority, undermined by our rejection of the social chapter, to introduce laws relating to discrimination.
My point is that, given that we have a Race Relations Act, and given that all other Community member states accede—either directly in their constitutions, or by importing the provisions of the European convention into their domestic laws—not including such matters in more detail in the treaty represents an omission from the rights of citizens and, pace my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, from those of others.
Declarations of principle are not enough. According to the American constitution, it is self-evident that all men are horn equal. That did not help the slaves until 1864, and it did not help a lot of black people until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. We need more than a declaration of principle: we need the machinery to implement it.
It is the Labour party's view, expressed at our European conference late last year, and the view of the European parliamentary Labour party that there should

be a directive on such matters. I endorse that view, and I consider that such a directive is an important ingredient of citizenship. It is important for these reasons.
First, freedom from discrimination is, in one way or another, part of the governing principles of every member of the Community. Therefore, it is a gross omission for it not to be spelt out exactly in the treaty.
Secondly, the danger inside the Community and Europe as a whole is not discrimination on grounds of nationality. People are no longer, if they ever were, discriminated against specifically because they are French or German. It is much more likely, as happened before the war, that people are discriminated against because they are Jewish, or gipsies, or Arabs. Discrimination always was, perhaps, discrimination on the grounds of membership of a group, not on grounds of nationality. It is self-evident from what is happening in Yugoslavia that discrimination against people because of their membership of a group has to be dealt with.
Thirdly, freedom from discrimination is important as a matter of self-interest. Let no one ever imagine that to allow discrimination can be in anybody's self-interest. It is not; it is the reverse. One only has to look at the history of Northern Ireland and at what is happening now in Yugoslavia. If people were motivated only by self-interest, they would want workable laws against racial discrimination. That is why it is so important to incorporate this principle into the practice of the Community. In a cohesive Community, differences of race and social origin would be unimportant.
It is also important that the European Community should set an example to the rest of the world. One hears talk nowadays of fortress Europe, of a European Community that is distinct and different, that sets itself apart and makes itself exclusive in terms of the rest of the world. When the Community deals with racial discrimination, we shall demonstrate to the rest of the world that the Community has a wider view. At the moment, unfortunately, the Community has an image of being largely white and largely Christian. It is, however, a Community that will eventually incorporate not an Islamic state but Muslims. Turkey is a secular state, but if Turkey or Cyprus becomes a member of the Community, the Community will also incorporate a Muslim tradition. Therefore, it is important for us to demonstrate to the rest of the world what the Community has in mind.
I have listened to several days of the debate, and I have been surprised by the lack of vision and the lack of idealism. Last weekend, the world deplored, not celebrated, the rise of Hitler 60 years ago, a rise that was largely helped by the hatred of foreign nationals, Jews, gipsies, Slays and minority groups. Six years after Hitler's rise to power, there was a world war. That world war became the basis for forming a community in Europe. The prime purpose of its formation was to prevent that from ever happening again. But we need more than that. If we look at what is happening in Germany and other member states, we see that we also need to learn other lessons about the rise of Hitler to power in the 1930s.
If we are to have citizenship of the union, it must be a full and equal citizenship in which each man and woman has equal dignity. Citizenship should be broadened to the extent of having real declarations and real machinery for the elimination of discrimination throughout the


Community, and they would apply not just to citizens of the Community but to everyone living within the Community.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: What worries me about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is that if, against the will of the British people, we are forced into a union where the laws and requirements are not consistent with the wishes of the British people, it may fan those very hatreds that the hon. Gentleman, with the rest of us, is so anxious to stop.
There was much in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I agreed. The aims that he spelled out are aims with which we can all align, but they can be achieved through intergovernmental co-operation, not by forcing through a pattern of co-operation against the wishes of the people and against sensitivities of our British history and tradition.
This is the first time that I have made a speech in the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and I hope to be brief, but that is not to say that I shall be patronising towards those who wish to intervene. I shall not call them Euro-bores because everybody here has some contribution to make. I speak as someone who, although he is on this side of the discussion, is a European, has always been a European and hopes always to be a European.
When the time came for us to try to make sure that the British people were persuaded that Britain should stay in the European Community, I took a very expensive three weeks away from my practice at the Bar in order to spend every day, as in a general election campaign, persuading people that we should stay within the European Community because of the many advantages to them if we did so. My bona fides, therefore, are clear.
I want the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Community. If we do not give our approval to Maastricht, we shall stay part of the European Community. I do not wish the United Kingdom to leave it, but I do not think that the way in which the European Community is going is necessarily the way that would meet with the agreement of the British people. I want this country to stay in Europe, but I ask: what kind of Europe do we want to stay in? I am not sure that I want the kind of Europe that Mr. Delors, with the support of a large number of people in the European Community, is marking out for us.
The Government say of the citizenship proposals in the treaty, "We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens." I assume that the Government intend to convey the meaning that, for us, British citizenship will be first and foremost. I ask, will it be? The Government say, "European citizenship is additional to British citizenship. It simply confers extra rights on all EC national citizens. Does it? Is that all that it does? That is certainly what is suggested in the Government's booklet. As far as I can see, there is not one mention of duties which will be imposed upon us by being members of this European citizenship.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, said in an earlier intervention that there is no question of us wanting a European state or of there being a European state. What, then, is the purpose of citizenship? Citinzenship is all about allegiance to the state. It does not mean anything else but allegiance to the state. I shall return to that point in a few moments because I believe that these Government

statements or interpretations are very misleading. They imply to those who listen to them and who look no further under the meaning of the words that nothing very much will change from what it is now, except that we shall have the benefit of an additional citizenship—citizenship of the union.
Such manifest nonsense is spoken about it that one wonders whether the Government can be serious. Euro-citizenship confers not only extra rights but extra duties; there is no doubt about that. Article 8(2) states explicitly:
Citizens … shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.
We shall have duties imposed on us as citizens of the union; but what are those duties? One will be the duty to pay taxes to the union, or state. If there is a Euro-tax regime, as there will be if we ratify Maastricht and follow the route planned for us, we shall have to abide by it. Britain will be forced to adopt that regime whether or not the British people or the British Parliament want it.
6.30 pm
If the Euro-tax regime demands that we do away with zero rating because it does not want to zero-rate children's shoes, or books, transport or food, we shall, in the interests of the whole Community, have to agree to one value added tax regime. We shall not be able to argue that we cannot implement such a regime, because we should be taken to the European Court and fined if we did not. The new Euro-state will therefore be able to impose that duty on us.
One of the fundamental duties of the citizen is to defend the state. If the state is the Euro-state, defence of the Euro-state will be an obligation placed on British citizens, whether or not they agree. If the British citizen or the British Parliament, has doubts about whether it is sensible to send an armed force to Iraq or for an armed force to go to Bosnia but the Euro-state says that that is Euro policy, we shall have to conform because our Euro-citizenship will place a duty and an obligation on us to abide by that demand.

Mr. Bill Walker: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, other European Community countries operate conscription. Does he think that Scots, as British citizens, can look forward to the delightful duty of being conscripted into as future European force?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I was going to deal with the question of conscription, but now I need not do so. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is why the preamble about a common defence policy is so important to the debate on citizenship. Few things are more important to citizenship than the obligation to defend the state.

Mr. Knapman: Greece is a member of the Community, but Turkey is not. Would my hon and learned Friend care to consider what would happen if there was trouble in Cyprus, for instance?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the dark points—the relationship between Greece and Turkey and the way in which it will bear on the future of the European Community. I have an immense regard for Greece and Turkey. As hon. Members may know, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we produced a report on the future of Cyprus. There are immense problems for a union which excludes Turkey but retains Greece, and which may or may not take


in Cyprus. It has many other ramifications, but I do not wish to pursue that subject. My hon. Friend has made a sensible point. Such a state of affairs might involve decisions contrary to the feelings of the British nation, but, because we shall be citizens of the state, we shall have to conform.
Duties are nowhere expressly defined in the Maastricht treaty, but we can be perfectly sure that what is and what is not a duty will be interpreted not by a British court but by the European Court of Justice. In the fulness of time, because that is in the nature of things, we shall have additional duties loaded on to our shoulders which we did not dream of when we first discussed these issues. They will be loaded on to our shoulders by interpretation of the European Court of Justice.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department must take on board on behalf of the Government, the fact that when we visited electors in our constituencies during the general election, if we had knocked on doors and said, "Excuse me, I want you to vote for me because I want more duties loaded on to my shoulders as a result not of what the British Parliament and Government have decided but of what other Parliaments and Governments in the rest of the European Community have decided", no one would have voted for us.

Mr. Marlow: Front-Bench Members have mentioned the various benefits arising from this part of the treaty, including petitioning, the appointment of an ombudsman and being able to vote. We can discuss whether or not they are benefits, but would it not be possible to have those benefits, or disbenefits, without having to be citizens of the European union and having citizenship imposed on us? My hon. and learned Friend talks about duties. Could we not have the benefits without citizenship and imposed duties? Why do we need them? Why did the Government agree to them?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend makes another of his excellent points. Intergovernmental co-operation can achieve the benefits. What worries me is the forcing of our will into a Community decision of the state with an obligating citizenship. That was the issue that I began to explain in response to the hon. Member for Norwood, who has been so disgusted by my remarks that he has left the Chamber.

Mr. Jessel: A minute ago my hon. and learned Friend mentioned canvassing in the general election. Does he agree that, in the general election, the Maastricht treaty was hardly an issue at all because there was agreement between the three main political parties on it, and certainly agreement between the two Front Benches, so that it was a matter of controversy between the political parties? There was much dispute in the general election—we can all remember disputes about the health service, rates of income tax and so on—but if one looks at, say, the headlines of all the main newspapers throughout the three weeks of the campaign. Maastricht hardly featured and was not an issue on which people voted.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely why a referendum is necessary. I am one of the members of the Conservative party who do not

believe that, in the normal way of things, a referendum is an acceptable way to proceed. We are Members of Parliament, elected by the people to represent their views, and we cannot go through the whole catechism of issues for a referendum, but, on a matter of constitutional importance about which the people have not been given a specific opportunity to say yes or no, a referendum is required.

Mr. Shore: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that the treaty was not published until May whereas the general election was held on 9 April greatly reinforces the case for a direct reference to the British people?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Not only was the treaty not published but the explanation was not given. As I hope to point out in due course, the explanation that has been given is even now misleading and should be corrected before the British people have the right to decide in a referendum whether they want the treaty.
My second point about the misleading nature of the Government's assertions, no doubt made in the utmost good faith, is that Euro-citizenship is not just an additional label and does not simply provide additional duties; it changes the nature of our relationships. Acceptance of Euro-citizenship is not a voluntary matter. We will have to accept it; it says so in article 8. That means that we can no longer renounce our citizenship and move to France, Germany or elsewhere within our cultural area. If we want to renounce anything, we shall have to live outside the European Community, in America, the old Commonwealth or the new Commonwealth—if we can get in. Euro-citizenship changes fundamentally the relation-ship that we had with the state when we could decide voluntarily whether to stay or go.
Moreover, questions regarding the position of Her Majesty the Queen under a system of Euro-citizenship require some answers. Her Majesty has British citizenship. She will no doubt become a citizen of the union and presumably will be subject to the duties conferred on her by the treaty. Does that mean that she will be obliged to pay Euro income tax or any tax that the Euro-state requires her to pay?

Mr. Rowe: I am listening with avid attention. I am not in any sense a constitutional lawyer—I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer of great excellence—but it seems to me that, arguably, Her Majesty the Queen is not a British citizen, in the sense that she is not allowed to exercise many of the attributes of citizenship.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is generally accepted by international lawyers, as well as by the Home Secretary and the Government, that Her Majesty the Queen is pre-eminently the British citizen and is therefore subject to the law of the land as any citizen would be. The last member of the royal family who said that he was not a British citizen and that he was not subject to the laws and obligations of the land had a little walk further down Whitehall, which ended in the loss of an important part of his body and a number of years of civil war.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Of course.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose speech should be carefully noted because of his experience in these matters and the office that he holds. He may recall that, earlier this afternoon, the Home Secretary feigned ignorance when asked about the position of the Queen. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly been asked about the position of Her Majesty—or, to be more accurate, the monarch of the day—and have repeatedly failed to answer.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, unlike legislation of the Community, which would bind the duty of the monarch or legislation of this House, consequent on a legislative programme of the Community, under the intergovernmental parts of the treaty that require a single process, it would become the duty of the Crown and its prerogative—meaning government, which traditionally has not been completely within the grasp of this House—to concur with whatever the intergovernmental institutions. decreed? For the first time, the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the Crown itself, would become subject to the macro-treaties of which we speak.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right; but I will not hear criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He is one of the busiest and most preoccupied Ministers in the Cabinet. Morning, noon and night, he has to apply his mind to the problems of the police, prisons, immigration, the fire service and a whole range of activities that are totally time-consuming. I will not accept any criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend for not having accurately considered every single matter in the treaty. I merely make the point that, to reassure those who are concerned about these matters, it is most important that Ministers should be present who have had time to consider them in greater detail and can answer questions concerning, for example, the role of the Queen.

6 45 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I see that my hon. Friend can answer the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary could not.

Mr. Wardle: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will appreciate the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend catalogued his many responsibilities, which do, indeed, make him a busy man. Let me clarify the point that is of concern to the Committee. The Maastricht treaty does not in any way affect the constitutional position of the monarch. Her Majesty as an individual would of course enjoy the same rights within the EC as any other United Kingdom citizen.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In view of what the Minister has just said, why is it that the Queen's consent is required on Third Reading? If what the Minister said was correct, it would surely not be necessary for Her Majesty's consent to be signified.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me; it is a question for the Minister.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said—that Her Majesty the Queen has the same rights as any other member of the Community. That being so, it must surely follow that she would have the right to vote in European elections and to stand for the European Parliament. She would even have the municipal right—it is clear from the treaty that that right is regarded as important—to vote and stand in local government elections. If she wished, Her Majesty could stand for election to Westminster city council. Those are rights and duties that I believe Her Majesty would gain under the Maastricht treaty. I merely make the point that the treaty alters the relationship that Her Majesty has with her citizens and with the rest of the European Community. The treaty changes the basis of citizenship as we know it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Surely the whole point is that, although we are debating a Bill that imposes upon all the citizens of the United Kingdom a new duty—and the word "duty" ought to be underlined—Ministers are still receiving advice from the Box on fundamental matters. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to come here and joke about the gullible Danes—who, incidentally, follow the democratic process—but the fact is that the Committee is being asked to vote on a number of basic duties of citizenship without any clear idea of how far the provision goes, of what is involved or of the commitment that we are making on behalf of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Frankly. I find that both frightening and irresponsible.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with the hon. Lady. We have just seen what can happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had one view of the Queen's position and that view was corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister.
These matters are important to the British people. It may be nostalgic and old-fashioned—the result of some feeling rather than of rationality—of us to feel so strongly monarchist and to have such regard for the royal family. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Bill affect the rights and duties of the royal family for the future, and those rights and duties must be clarified so that the British people can feel confident about the future.
My hon. Friend the Minister says that Her Majesty will have the same rights and duties as any European citizen. In that case, it is in the nature of that relationship that she must be a citizen of the Euro-state. As she is a British citizen, she will become a citizen of the Euro-state and subject to the Euro-state, whose leader—the President—will presumably have rights similar to those that Her Majesty enjoys in Britain at present.
Is it seriously suggested that the British people would have wanted Her Majesty the Queen to be a subject of Mr. Delors, remembering his thoughts about the future of Europe? By what right should we expect the Queen to be so subject? Would the British people have voted for us had we been able, with the right information and existence of the treaty, to ask them about such matters at the last general election?

Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend is approaching a delicate and important point. By the kind courtesies of the government of the European state, Her Majesty will be a citizen of that state. She will be Queen but Mr. Delors will be President. He will be President of the whole organisation—President of Europe—while she


will be Queen of a mere participant in Europe. Who will take precedence at official functions? Will it be Mr. Delors, with Her Majesty playing second fiddle to him? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that our constituents will be worried about the legislation if it turns out to have that effect?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Let us be realistic. Seldom does the Prime Minister go to a meeting of Staffordshire county council, so that the question whether he should have precedence over the chairman of the county council does not arise. Such events rarely happen now and they are unlikely to happen often in the future. The question of precedence is probably not of importance, though my hon. Friend's intervention underlines my point that the relationship of the British citizen will alter under the treaty, just as the duties imposed on British citizens under it will be greater.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. and learned Friend said encouragingly that we should be realistic. We are debating the Maastricht treaty, which imposes no specific duties on individuals. The only duty is to obey provisions of EC law which impose an obligation on individuals. The rest must be speculation and, as we are considering article 8, that speculation would be subject to the double lock in article 18.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: But if the law being created by the European Community creates more duties, we are subject to them, for the very reason adduced by my hon. Friend the Minister—in other words, there will be more duties and a changed relationship.
Others will have rights to join in and interfere with British citizenship here in the United Kingdom. Citizens of other states will be able to vote in our municipal elections and Euro-elections. There are a number of marginal seats in this country, some with very small majorities. Consider one such constituency about which it is known from public opinion polls and canvassing that the result will be on a knife edge.
What will stop sufficient French farmers, for example, coming here, being here on the night that is necessary for registration as electors, perhaps by virtue of their European citizenship being able to come backwards and forwards for long enough to comply with the six-month residency in the constituency rule before voting, and thereby getting the MEP they want? Such an MEP might stand for policies which the Euro-farmer particularly wants but which the British farmer does not want.

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is no residential qualification in the treaty relating to citizenship? We should be told the latest Home Office thinking on the matter. After all, even the trespassing CND women at Greenham common managed to acquire a period of residence that was suitable for the purposes of the residential qualification. If that could be achieved, I have no doubt that all manner of people could be brought in from across the channel.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right, because the law requires some residential qualification.

Mr. Wilkinson: We have recently enacted provisions by which British expatriate nationals have the right to vote in United Kingdom elections. I presume that EC nationals who have in the past acquired residence in this country could go to Timbuctoo or anywhere on the globe and vote in British elections. It is unsatisfactory that expatriate nationals who will acquire, by virtue of the treaty, citizenship of the European union will not have their rights clearly defined in electoral law.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter. We make to other groups all sorts of concessions that other countries do not make. Likewise, they make concessions to groups that we do not make. One such concession is the voting right given in certain circumstances to expatriates. Other nations in the EC may not wish to accept that type of regime and will test the issue in the European Court of Justice. We may find that a concession that the British people, through their Parliament, considered to be right is taken from us.
Another example is extremely worrying. We have made a special exception in relation to the Irish. They can come here and stand for election, vote and sit on juries. That was part of the agreement with Ireland in the post-1920 era. That concession may have served us well, and people have opinions about whether the Irish should have those rights. When we questioned the matter a year or so ago and asked why the same rights were not reciprocal with Eire, the Irish Government quickly changed the law so that anybody who wants to stand or vote in an Irish election can do so, and I believe that it is possible for anybody who wishes to do so to serve on an Irish jury.
I merely make the point that we are discussing one of those rules that the British Parliament has decided and has not revoked. Such a variation in our rules might not be acceptable to our partners in the EC, who might take the matter to the European Court. It might be ruled to be in breach of undertakings given in Maastricht and be contrary to the Euro-citizen rules laid down in the treaty. We would find ourselves obliged to change what had been a traditional attitude towards the people of Ireland.
I am not saying that that will happen. I am discussing a number of situations that could arise once we open the doors and allow them to happen, and that is what the Maastricht treaty does. Further, it does it without consulting the British people to see whether they want it to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out.
The nationals of other countries and the citizens of the Euro-state will be able to come here and play their part in municipal—county, district and parish council—elections. They will be eligible to come here and stand and vote and thereby affect the future of British society. That represents a considerable change in the present situation and, by itself, contradicts the assurance we have been given that the treaty will improve matters and will not take anything away. Many people may not want the French to decide who our district, county or parish councillors should be.
I ask this question in all seriousness: can my hon. Friend the Minister give a guarantee that "municipal" means only district council, county council and paris council? [Interruption.] It is not a joke. It is clear, not simply from the case in 1972 but from a number of other references, that the European Community sometimes used the word municipal as the counter to community—municipal not meaning municipal elections to district


councils, country councils and parish councils but meaning pertaining to the nation state. It may well be that that is not the meaning which will ever be used in this case.
The question of what "municipal" actually means—whether it will be restricted in that way—may well have to be referred to the European Court of Justice. If the word "municipal" has been used time and time again in France, Italy and the European Court to mean national, can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that it will never give Euro-citizens a right to vote in our general elections? It is not such a silly question.
If there is a Euro-citizenship which entitles people to have a right to vote in parish, district and county council elections, what is the argument in principle about not letting them vote in a general election? I can see a difference in degree, but I can see no difference in principle. If there is no difference in principle, who will guarantee that the European Court of Justice will say that there is no difference in principle and that "municipal" must mean municipal in the way that we mean it?

Mr. Cash: My hon. and learned Friend is addressing what he and I regard as a serious point. I am sure many other people regard it in the same way. Unfortunately, the point is that, if the treaty is ratified, the cat is out of the bag and the Court of Justice has grabbed it.
It does not matter a fig what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks. What he thinks on this subject probably is not worth a row of beans, because he is not a lawyer who is likely to appear before the European Court. I am not interested in the opinion of his Foreign Office lawyers, because they are wrong more often than they are right. We found that out with the Canada Bill. I could give the Committee a list as long as my arm of the times when they have got things fundamentally wrong.
In this particular case, the matter can arise only after ratification. If the Court of Justice takes the view which it has taken in the past, it will not matter a damn what the Foreign Office lawyers and the Minister have said, because the Court of Justice will have the right, under the European Communities Act 1972, to decide the matter.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: As is often the case, my hon. Friend underlines and concludes the point that I am making much more effectively than I could have done, and I accept what he says.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall move on because it is important that I should do so.
Article 8b does not define the phrase
residing … in which he resides
before a Euro-citizen can cast a vote in one of our elections. Euro-citizens must reside in Britain under the rules which apply at present before they can vote in our elections. Surely that means that such citizens must be in the United Kingdom on a day in October or whenever and have been here for a period of residence. However, we do not know that, because it is not set out in the treaty.
7 pm
The question of who a resident is, who will vote or who can stand for election to the county council, district council or parish council may have to be decided in the European Court of Justice. That decision will be made not by a British court but by a European court. It will be made

not by somebody who has been brought up in the history and traditions of the British system but by somebody or a number of learned men who have been brought up in a system in another country which bears no relationship to the traditions of British government.
I shall give another example of power being taken from us and residing in a body in which we will have some right to participate and perhaps some strong right to influence but not the right to make a final decision in the interests of the people. Article 8d gives Euro-citizens the right to petition the European Parliament. What will happen if such a petition succeeds? Will it succeed over the decisions of the British Parliament? Is that an example of the European Parliament taking power over the Westminster Parliament?
How many people would have voted for me if I had knocked on doors at the last general election and said, "Please vote for me because I want to surrender power to the European Parliament. I do not want the Westminster Parliament to have the powers which it has at the moment. I want fewer powers. I want to give people the right to petition a European Parliament and to oblige the European Parliament to oblige a Euro-citizen in Britain to go along such a path"? We are talking about the surrender of power away from a Westminster Parliament. That is my bottom line. What moves me most about the Maastricht treaty is the surrender of power away from the Westminster Parliament. People have not been consulted, and I know perfectly well that they do not want it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The interesting point is that we have the right to petition the European Parliament at present. Since there is no extra extension of advantage, why is the treaty written in such a way unless the unwritten intention is that the decision can be enforced? At present, after we have petitioned the European Parliament, a decision cannot necessarily be enforced. Are we to assume that in the future we shall have to conform with whatever decision is taken?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It seems that the power to petition the European Parliament is excluded in the treaty because it will give more power than exists at present, or there would be no point in including it.

Mr. Rowe: In my general election campaign, I made it abundantly clear that I thought that the Maastricht treaty was a good thing and that the European Community should be strengthened. It may well be that my constituents share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whose views of our officials, our lawyers and our constitution seem to be so denigrating. For that reason, it may be that my constituents substantially increased my majority.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend's personal powers and charm must have persuaded a large number of people to give him the benefit of any doubt which they may have had because they could not have seen anything in writing and they would not know the explanation of the things in writing. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's majority increased or decreased.

Mr. Rowe: My majority increased.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend's majority would have increased much more if he had been able to say to the


electors of Mid-Kent, "I am standing up against the desire to grab the powers from the Westminster Parliament and give them to some Parliament elsewhere in Europe."

Mr. Cash: Is it possible—as it were, vicariously through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—to remind the citizens of Mid-Kent that it was those massive marches to preserve their homes and so on which led my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent to charge up to No. 10 and so on? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will have an opportunity to prove his point when undoubtedly he will vote against the rail privatisation Bill tomorrow and sustain the reason why he got so much support in the 1992 general election in addition to the other support which he has already.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Again, I can only accept the observation of my hon. Friend. I make no comment about it.
So far I have said that, contrary to the assurances that have been given, there will be changes to the rights and duties of the British people as a result of Euro-citizenship. Maastricht will provide us with more duties, change our relationships and give other people the right to interfere in the rights and activities of the British people. That is what will happen.

Mr. Winnick: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to his next point, may I ask him whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who shares our views on this subject, said that the two Conservative candidates in Southend borough received more or less the same percentage of support? One was opposed to Maastricht and one was in favour. Is not the point that the treaty was not an issue at the general election for either of the two main parties? The British people clearly did not make up their minds on that issue. Hence the need, before power is taken away from the House of Commons to a much greater degree than previously, for the British people to say yea or nay.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: With great respect, we have flogged that one. We are talking about the need for a referendum. Although the point needs to continue to be made, perhaps it does not need to continue to be made so often.
One must ask two questions: first, will Maastricht as it is drafted be better for the British people? Secondly, will it be better for the British people if the intentions which are clear in the treaty are translated? I have just dealt with the question whether the treaty would be better for the British people in the form in which we have examined it so far and insofar as it diminishes the rights and increases the duties of the citizen in Britain. The answer to that question is no.
So what are the intentions for the future of the framers of the treaty and its signatories? It seems obvious to me that the intentions are to diminish the nation state and the concept of national citizenship in favour of the Euro-state.
I come to that conclusion for the following reasons. First, if all that were wanted were reciprocal rights, there is no reason why they could not have been provided without the concept of citizenship. All that would be required would be some such statement as, "The rights accorded under the French constitution are hereby accorded to the citizens of the United Kingdom, Germany,

Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal," and all the others. That is all that would be needed for us to enjoy each other's rights. But that is not want we have. We have the concept of citizenship.
The concept of citizenship came about because the Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, said that it would be a good idea if we could bind the concept of a union together with European citizenship. On page 79 of its opinion of 21 November 1990 to the conference drafting the Maastricht treaty, the Commission approved the concept because it would
encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration.
Those are weasel words if ever there were any.
There is only one point in creating citizenship, and that is to set up an obligation to a state. So the Commission proposed that the European citizen would have a right of free residence and movement and a right to vote in local and European parliamentary elections. It said that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights would be set at a later stage.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is interesting that my hon. and learned Friend referred to the origin of the concept of European citizenship. He accorded the origin of the idea to Felipe Gonzalez, whom he said claimed that European citizenship would grant to the holders of that citizenship a greater sense of belonging and integration in the Community. Can my hon. and learned Friend clarify what the Gibraltarians might think of that idea and what their status is under European citizenship?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, but I can guess. As we are going into a little history, I might add that I was present with other colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Strasbourg when President Mitterrand made a speech to the European Parliament in which he explained that he thought that the time was nigh for European political and economic union. I noticed a gasp of dismay among my Conservative colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at that time, most of whom will troop through the Lobby with the Government for the very political and economic union which had them so aghast when they first heard it from the mouth of President Mitterrand in Strasbourg.
The intention is that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights will be set at a later stage. Everything is done by a step-by-step approach. We manage to tame the abuses of union power not by means of a massive change but by the step-by-step approach. Everyone has learnt that if one wants to achieve something, one does it by the step-by-step approach. One signals one's intention with weasel words, which can mean anything, so that people cannot say that they were not warned. We are warned that by European citizenship we will encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. In years to come people will say that they made it clear that they wanted Euro-citizenship.
Targets will be set for the definition of civic, economic and social rights at a later stage. No one can say that he was not warned that we were going even further down the path of reducing our national rights and increasing our international burden, and changing the relationship


between the British citizen and the Queen or British citizens and other citizens of the Euro-state. No one will be able to say that we were not warned.
I looked at the literature which was circulated during the 1975 referendum campaign to see whether we were promised that something would not happen that subsequently happened. I wanted some ammunition. When I looked at the words, I saw that they could mean anything. They could mean yes and they could mean no. It was clear that those who used those forms of words did so in a way that would make it possible for them to behave or act in a different way later when the demand came.
Looking back at all those words, it is difficult to say that we were not warned. We were warned, but it depended on how one interpreted the words.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. and learned Friend is dealing with the important question of the dynamic nature of the treaty and the fact that it points to the future. Does he agree that it is because the treaty is dynamic that the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was so unsatisfactory? My hon. Friend dwelt on exactly the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes when he talked about defence. He talked about policies "which might in time lead" to a common defence policy. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that point was never properly answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? My hon. and learned Friend puts in context the questions that ought to be answered about where the whole thing will lead in the future.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not mean to be offensive when I say that civil servants, in their answers, must be as inscrutable as possible so that, in five years' time, a Minister will not be hauled over the coals for saying something quite different. Time and again in this debate we have heard answers that could mean yes or no, could mean one thing or another. If one were to ask, "Will the position of the Queen he changed?", one might be told, "No. She will be as any other citizen of the European Community. The position now is as before".

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In this debate, Front-Bench Members are not coming clean with the Committee. Hon. Members are therefore unable to come clean with the people about the way in which citizenship is being fundamentally altered, ratchetwise—especially by this treaty. Will my hon. and learned Friend direct his attention to that matter? Surely it is quite wrong to change the status and role of citizenship without informing the people of what is being done in their name, especially as it appears that Front-Bench Members on both sides do not themselves know what is in the treaty.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The only answer I can sensibly give is yes.
On the question of setting targets at a later stage, I have to say that the Community will take over and define the key aspects of the individual's relationship with the state. That is what is intended. The Community will look at the matter again at a later stage. It is all set out in article 8e. There are to be reviews, at intervals of three years, of the rights of European citizenship. The Council of Ministers will be empowered to strengthen or add to the rights

already laid down. When this legislation has been passed and the Maastricht treaty has been ratified, provision for those reviews will be in place.
Will that be done by unanimous decision or by majority decision? Even if it is to be by unanimous decision, the Minister may not by then have any means of signifying in advance what he wants to talk about and what decisions he will have to make. We have tried to make the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs the monitor of the intentions of Ministers. By contrast, a Scrutiny Committee can only consider matters after the event. I am not by any means convinced that we shall know sufficiently in advance what a Minister will do under the give and take and the compromise of the Council of Ministers.
However, it is clearly provided—no one will he able to complain afterwards—that the Council of Ministers can strengthen the rights and duties already laid down. That is what we will be agreeing to if we ratify this treaty. As the duties are not defined anywhere in the treaty, it will be for the European Court of Justice, which includes judges from several other countries—judges, I say with respect, who have no experience, knowledge, wisdom or understanding with regard to the day-to-day working of the British nation—to define our duties for us.
I do not want to labour the points that I am making, but I wish to summarise. The duties are more onerous, the relationships are changed, and there is potential for further change, yet these are matters that we are called upon to support in the context of citizenship. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" defines citizenship as the
relationship between an individual and state, defined by the law of that state, with corresponding duties and rights".
It is manifest nonsense to say that these proposals do not contemplate the formulation of a state. There is no point in having citizenship if there is no state. Euro-citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a Euro-state.
Chancellor Kohl had absolutely no doubt when he said:
The European union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which, within a few years, will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war—the united states of Europe.
By "united states" he clearly meant states as in America. That European state will be superior to the existing nation states. It will have the power to decide and to enforce rights and duties. It is true that a person from the United Kingdom is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and a citizen of Burton-on-Trent, or Staffordshire, or somewhere else, but that is a confusion of the real meaning. Citizenship ought to indicate where ultimate power lies.
Can the Government put their hand on their heart and promise us that, if Maastricht is ratified, the importance of British citizenship will not be progressively downgraded, that Euro-citizenship will not become more important, or even all-important? The inability to give that undertaking will signify to the British people exactly what we are doing here.
The Government have introduced a citizens charter giving more power to the individual citizen and less power to the state. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said:
It is a testimony to our belief in people's rights to be informed and to choose for themselves.
Do we have any right to choose or reject Euro-citizenship? Article 8 is not subject to qualified-majority or unanimous voting, nor is it subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers. It states unequivocally:
Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
People will not be able to say no. Things will be compulsory. People will not have asked for something, and will not want it, but they will get it anyway. There will be no referendum. So much for the citizens charter. It must be very embarrassing for Ministers to speak so highly in favour of the citizens charter, to speak brilliantly round the country about the free choice of citizens in John Major's Britain.
If it is clear that we shall not remain British citizens exactly as we are now, if it is clear that article 8 confers extra duties in many aspects of public life—and not just extra rights, as has been promised—if it is clear that we shall have no right to say no, it must be clear also that these amendments ought to be supported. They should be supported not just as probing amendments but as provisions that are necessary in their own right. If they win the day, there will be some hope of the Maastricht treaty's not being ratified. If the Maastricht treaty is not ratified, there will be some hope of the British people's being able to remain British in the full sense and of the Westminster Parliament's being able to retain powers that we are in danger of losing, powers that we know perfectly well we were not sent to this place to give away.

Mr. Gould: We are accustomed in these debates to complain about opacity of the Maastricht treaty provisions. Indeed, the comments of many outside observers almost exclusively concern the difficulties of understanding the arcane procedures that we are pursuing.
There can be no complaint about confusion or opacity over this issue. The treaty, which is entitled "The Treaty on European Union" is very clear in its opening words where it says:
By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'.
As we have heard, article 8 of the treaty provides that
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
The remaining provisions of article 8 specify, or at least allude to, the rights and duties that pertain to that citizenship. The new rights are spelt out—rights to consular protection and to vote and stand in municipal and Euro-elections.
7.30 pm
Under the provisions of article 8e, the Council is given the right and power to strengthen and add to those rights as it sees fit. There can hardly be a clearer statement.
Of course, it is tempting—one knows of many hon. Members and people outside the House who are prepared to yield to the temptation—to say that the treaty is just a piece of Euro-waffle. We are accustomed to our continental partners talking in rather grand metaphysical terms. We are accustomed to telling ourselves, in our rather superior way, that we like to stick to black letter law, practicality and the pragmatic aspects of policy making. We tell ourselves that we can safely ignore all that verbiage.
Yet those opening words and the provisions of article 8 could hardly be more specific, deliberate, considered or portentous. They are meant to matter and, as so often in the past, we ignore them at our peril.
It is not even the case that the treaty is simply a restatement of something that has gone before. We are often told that what appears to be a major new step towards the creation of a European state is of no account because it was already implicit in something that we did before. However, the Home Secretary was right—at least he knew something about that matter—when he conceded that this is a new provision. It is an innovation and it sets out a new concept of centralisation. We have heard about the origins of that concept this evening.
There is no question but that the treaty of Maastricht does a new and important thing—it creates citizenship of something called "the Union". What does that mean? It is extraordinary that that apparently important provision is passed by with virtually no comment whatsoever. Until this debate I was hardly aware that anyone, other than one or two people who are interested in such matters, had ventured to comment on what might be thought to be a matter of some considerable importance.

Mr. Marlow: That is certainly true of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Danes were allowed to consider the treaty. In their referendum the concept of citizenship was of massive significance and importance to them.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was directing my remarks to Britain. One might have thought that such concepts would have been of some interest and importance here, but it is here that the debate has been most notably lacking.
There has not even been much by way of explanation. The Home Secretary, representing the Government, spoke to the Committee on the subject and was unable to answer some of the most important and central questions that arise from the provisions.

Mr. Rowlands: While I accept the general tenor of my hon. Friend's case, and that the matter has not been properly investigated, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs took a considerable amount of expert legal advice on the matter, which I hope we shall be able to discuss this evening, to establish the concept of the union. A confusing concept emerged, but nevertheless we endeavoured to do so.

Mr. Gould: I wish that the Home Secretary, among others, and even the Minister of State, who is with us, might have familiarised themselves with what the Select Committee was able to do.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most disgraceful aspects of this entire farce is the fact that there has been no White Paper? Whereas the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right to refer to the fact that some extremely good evidence is scattered among Select Committee reports and so forth, there has been no clear and coherent attempt to bring it all together in about 20 pages for the benefit of the British people, which is quite possible. That negligence lies behind the whole of this farce.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is the central point, and what I am seeking to explain in this part of my speech. Other people may well have dealt with the question, but the Government have not done so and they have offered no explanation, by way of


a White Paper or statement of any sort, to suggest for a moment that they recognise the importance of what they are proposing to do through the Bill. Given that the concept of citizenship is newly fashionable, as several hon. Members including the Liberal Democratic party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) have said, it is surprising that the Government have not done so. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) mentioned the citizens' charter. Citizenship is said to be the basis of a raft of new rights and duties. It is the current fad, is it not?
A year or two ago the present Foreign Secretary was full of ideas about something called "active citzenship", although I confess that we have not heard much about it recently. That was to be the basis of a new contract between the citizen and Government, but we hear nothing about that from Ministers. They even seem to be embarrassed when they are asked simple questions about what the change—the creation of a new citizenship—may mean.
As other hon. Members have said, the truth of the matter is that citizenship in a vacuum is a meaningless concept. It only means something as part of a relationship —the relationship that links the individual to the political structure in which he or she lives or is governed. Citizenship links the individual to the monarch, to the Government, but most of all to the state. Citizenship without a state—in this case, without a union—is meaningless.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: One should be cautious about laziness and the slipping of language when referring to the citizens charter. That only serves the new Conservative-Labour Front Bench arrangement. It is not a citizens charter but merely a customer or consumers charter. The distinction must be made and we have to be precise because we are talking about the most intimate relationship—that of the individual and the state—and not about the relationship between a customer and a business.

Mr. Gould: I agree and I am seeking to argue that. It is precisely that relationship which is at issue.
The terminology is difficult. We have had to grapple with concepts of nationality and with being a subject. When I arrived in this country I was a New Zealand national but a British subject. I am glad to say that I have gone through the process of naturalisation, and I am proud to be a British citizen. Nationality, citizenship, subjecthood, the citizenship of the citizens charter are all slippery concepts that have been chopped and changed to such a degree that it is sometimes difficult to know what is intended when the terms are used. Even the treaty is obliged to talk of citizenship as it has to define the citizenship of the union by reference to the nationality of member states.
Let us be under no illusion: citizenship in terms of the treaty is, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from nationality as it applies to the nation state. How does that change affect the rights and obligations of British citizenship or nationality? It is tempting to say—we hear the argument advanced all the time, especially from the Front Bench teams—that we have nothing to worry about and the changes make no difference to British citizenship. It is suggested that we are being offered a sort of add-on

extra—a bonus, a sort of Green Shield stammp that brings only benefits, no duties. The terms of article 8 give the lie to that suggestion.
It is not a provision for a shared arrangement or reciprocal swapping and exchange of rights and duties. As others have said, that could have been done without creating a citizenship of the union. The Home Secretary professed that the provision simply created new rights. He glossed over the issue of duties and said that there were no new duties, but massive new duties have been created that are now owed, not just to a British nation state, but a totally new organisation: the European union—whatever that may be.

Mr. Winnick: The Government sometimes argue that the treaty will not make that much difference. They say that, whatever their views on Maastricht, all Labour Members of Parliament are and always have been enthusiastic about the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I certainly are. We also accept our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We are not little Englanders, and have made that clear on numerous occasions, and we carry out and recognise our international obligations. Is not there a fundamental difference between all that I have mentioned and the new scheme in the treaty that completely changes the concept, both of citizenship and the authority of the House? I am not aware that the authority of the House has been diminished as a result of our involvement with the United Nations and the rule of law on the international scene or our membership of NATO.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right. It astonishes me that there is so often a failure to distinguish between the obligations under international law taken on by the Government through signing treaties and the creation of a new political entity with its own Government, structures and, we now discover, citizenship.
How will such citizenship impinge on British nationality? Is there any competition between them? What happens if they are in conflict? What I am about to suggest may seem far-fetched and hypothetical, but one of the acid tests of citizenship or nationality is that it defines the duty of allegiance. If allegiance is ignored, it gives rise to serious charges such as treason.
Let us imagine that, in a far-fetched scenario, the issue was tested in a court case. Other hon. Members may say that that is unlikely, but there are cases of treason charges. What if the defence offered in the British court were to the effect that the allegiance owed to the British state was superseded by a superior allegiance owed to a different political entity and that the action complained of was not regarded as treasonable under that superior law? What would be the outcome of such a case? Would such a defence succeed?
It is important to understand—as has been made clear on numerous occasions—that the par excellence would be decided by the European Court of Justice, which regards itself as the instrument of European union and a constant upholder of the superiority of Community law. Can there be any doubt that, given the right case, that defence would succeed and immediately establish as a matter of principle that citizenship and allegiance are, at bottom, in conflict and cannot be held together. Such a conflict would be resolved in favour of citizenship of the union.

Mr. Budgen: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in fairness to the European Court, all the statutes of the European union speak of a progressive move towards the union? It is only here in the House of Commons that Ministers pretend that we can accept one measure and that will be the end of it. I am sorry to refer to the bad old days of Lady Thatcher, but she used to be so unwise as to talk about the ratchet effect. May I remind some of her erstwhile supporters—I do not want to embarrass anyone —that she used to be cheered when she talked about the ratchet effect. As we all know, the party has grown out of that vulgar and silly way of talking about things now that it is a pragmatic party, but it may have a certain truth to it. It is the ratchet effect to which the constitution of the EEC assigns the European Court as an essential instrument.

Mr. Gould: I certainly intend to come to precisely that subject later. I merely observe in passing that I wish that Lady Thatcher had sometimes been a little more aware of the ratchet when she was turning it.
I am still engaged in an exposition of the case, and have yet to comment on the desirability or otherwise of the developments. I shall now mention another aspect that has rightly attracted some attention—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to another subject and while he is still making his exposition, will he speculate for the Committee on why he believes that the Front Bench teams are not prepared to be honest with the people of this country about the fundamental changes that are being made in their name? Is not it wrong that we should bring about the changes by ratifying the Maastricht treaty without people being able to show that they sought those fundamental changes to our citizenship, which they certainly did not at the last election?

Mr. Gould: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion and shall speculate a little later on why we are confronted with so many people who seem unwilling or unable to recognise their true responsibilities in the House.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—coming, as he does, from his wing of the Labour party—has difficulty with a new concept. It is undoubtedly true that citizenship of the European Community is a new concept. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that article 8 of the treaty makes it clear that there is a difference between that citizenship—there may be a better word for it—of the European Community and nationality as allegiance to the nation state? Article 8 makes that difference extremely clear, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have detected that difference. He now states that he or the European Court could suggest that European citizenship could be seen as superior to nationality. Will he say where, in article 8, even a hint of that possibility arises?

Mr. Gould: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman either was not listening or was unable to follow my argument. I was saying that there certainly was a difference between citizenship of the European union and the

citizenship of member states—the latter would be subordinate to the former. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will go on to develop that point.
I return to the example of a person who uses as his defence when the issue of citizenship becomes critical the fact that he owes a superior duty and allegiance to the European union. That displaces his duty to the British state. That may or may not be right, but it was an interesting illustration of how the conflict could arise. If it did arise there is no doubt that the European Court of Justice would find in favour of the superiority of Community law. If it failed to do so it would be breaking with the body of precedent that it had itself established.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while it might seem far-fetched, there was a recent and relevant historical parallel? A number of brave nationals of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and the Ukraine owed allegiance to the nations of their birth but paid for it, in some cases with their lives, as they were not prepared to accept citizenship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was imposed on them against their will.

Mr. Gould: I am happy to agree, and I hope to refer to a point of similar political significance in a moment.
I come to another aspect of the new relationship—one that has already attracted some attention and on which I propose to comment only briefly. I refer to the position of Her Majesty the Queen. The Home Secretary was quite unable to answer a question about whether the Bill, if it became an Act, would bind the Queen in any way. Would she, as a British national, become a citizen of the European union? The Minister of State read out what I imagine was a note prepared for him by his civil servants, but it hardly answered the question.
I suppose that it could be argued that the Queen is beyond the reach of this Bill. That would be odd, because I think that the Minister of State confirmed that she would be a beneficiary of the rights of European citizenship. It must therefore follow that she will incur the duties of European citizenship—that she owes some sort of allegiance by virtue of it. It is a remarkable thought that the Queen, the supreme citizen of our political entity, would owe allegiance to some higher, wider authority.
I profess no infallibility on these questions; I merely point to possible interpretations, and this is what the law and the treaty appear to point to. We must therefore imagine a sort of sub-monarch in a sub-state, owing allegiance to some wider state. It follows that the debate on which we appear to be embarking may be entirely beside the point. The issue of whether a diminished monarchy would be good or bad may be beyond the competence of this House and the British people. It may be resolved by the treaty of Maastricht and the introduction of the citizenship of the European union.
At the very least we should be clear that we have created a new form of citizenship which is a relationship with a superior body of law and a wider geographical entity: a super-state. That relationship must be superior to the relationship that we all enjoy with the British state.
In a curious way we can already see the practical effects of this change when we arrive at Heathrow and are required to submit our passports not as British citizens but as citizens of the European Community. In a sense that was jumping the gun, but it was a practical manifestation of the effects of the new citizenship.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend's speech deserves the widest possible subsequent publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Oh yes, this is the most important speech that we have heard so far.
Does my hon. Friend recall that when the original legislation was passed the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the position of the Crown was not affected, forgetting that direct legislation circumvented both this House and the Royal Assen—so the position of the Crown was most certainly affected? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not only to take up allegiance to the constitution of this union but that, unlike the constitutions of states such as Australia and the United States of America, the union's constitution exhibits a particular political philosophy? That means that the allegiance is not just to the constitution but to the political philosophy as well. It is to he found in the preambles to the treaties, and they impose certain loyalties that may go beyond constitutional structures.

Mr. Gould: I am about to support the point to which my hon. Friend has directed me.
I have thus far not ventured an opinion on whether the changes I am seeking to describe are good or bad. I am merely saying that they are important. I shall go on to make the point that they are rather more important than many of those who would blindly accept the treaty realise. It is comparatively easy to sneer at terms which have a 19th century ring to them—allegiance, sovereignty and so on. They are wonderfully Diceyan in character. It is not so easy to sneer, however, at ideas like democracy and self-government—yet they are at issue if we are to impose on the British people or anyone else citizenship in a wider political entity than one which they have hitherto contemplated.
This is a matter of democracy, because there is an unfortunate tendency for many people to argue that democracy is merely a matter of elections—that the democratic process is no more than a question of deciding which of competing sets of people within a given political entity ought to form the Government. That is certainly an important aspect, but democracy is also a form of Government within a defined political entity. It is self-government if it is anything. What is at issue here is the definition of that "self". If the self which is the subject of a democratic government is to be changed without the consent or authority of that self, that is a development of the greatest significance.
We can elect representatives to our hearts' content to send to the European Parliament, from which, perhaps, a European Government could be drawn, but that will not of itself resolve the problem unless it is clear that the British people have signified their assent to be governed within the new political entity. Until that moment arrives —it cannot arrive until it is tested—those who would support the Maastricht treaty may sneer for as long as they like, but what they are doing is violating concepts that we are all in the House to verify, confirm and maintain.
These issues are not to be sneered at. They involve democracy, self-government and our consent to being governed by those whom we choose to govern us.

Mr. Marlow: I invite the hon. Gentleman to go further than that. If the treaty goes through without proper ratification by the British people in the form of a

referendum, and if as a result obligations and duties are imposed from Europe on them, does the hon. Gentleman think it right and proper that the British people should feel obliged to observe those obligations and duties?

Mr. Gould: That takes us into deep waters. I fervently hope that we shall never reach the point where citizens of this country have to choose, as Germans did under the Nazi regime, between their preparedness to obey the law —which is the normal condition of citizenship—and their refusal to accept a legal system imposed upon them from outside.

8 pm

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: The hon. Member mentioned the European Court of Justice and its role in these matters—a subject that interests me. I tried to raise the issue a couple of weeks ago and it is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman mention it. He raises an area of conflict, and it is always such areas arising from the treaty that lead to that court. Does he agree that the natural progression is that it is not democratically elected Governments which will decide the issue but the European Court, whose boundaries and views have been clearly stated?

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I suspect that he is a lawyer, but perhaps not. I used to teach constitutional law and international law. One of the interesting questions for courts is to decide the principles on which to interpret the provisions of statutes and treaties and so on. One such approach is described as teleological, in which the purpose and the end result of the process that is set in train by the treaty or statute is understood, and the treaty or statute is interpreted to conform to the accepted objective.
The European Court of Justice is interesting—I put it no more strongly than that—because of the overt way in which it has adopted, quite deliberately and selfconsciously—this teleological approach. It interprets every legal question that is brought before it in order to further the cause of European union. I do not say whether that is good or bad: simply that we should understand that that is what confronts us. When any of these questions have to be decided by the European Court, we should not be surprised, because we are on notice, at the court's view.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the questions that we were all taught to ask about international law was whether it had the characteristic of being enforceable? If eventually, as is suggested in the preamble, there is a European army, it is possible—I am not being fanciful or over-excited—that it could be used to enforce federal decisions against nation states. That could bring in the classic conflict of loyalty that we saw in the battle between the north and the south in America.

Mr. Gould: I shall leave to one side the issue of whether there is to be a European army. In many ways the situation we are already in has progressed well beyond the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are not discussing a relationship that is defined by the principles of international law: we are discussing a new system of national law is already enforceable. The whole system operates as a hierarchy, as a pyramid, at the top of which is the European Court of Justice which makes sure that the provisions are enforced.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Gould: I shall not give way, because I wish to make progress. No doubt the interventions are well intentioned, but I have sat here for at least three or four hours and know how wearying it is for those who wish to speak to have to listen to a long list of interventions.
In my view it is no accident that the treaty uses the term "union". The term has caused a great deal of difficulty in translation between French and English for a long time, but it is used specifically and deliberately. We tend to debate these issues in terms of whether what is proposed is federal, but that entirely misses the point. We believe that somehow a federal structure will be produced by taking powers from the nation states and giving them to a new federal government structure.
That is not what the treaty proposes nor is it in the minds of those who are driving the whole concept of a European union. They have gone well beyond any question of a federation. They envisage, as the treaty makes clear, a union. For them that has to be, and as I hope to demonstrate is already, a unitary state. To them, federation is a derogation from that unitary state to subordinate authorities in the regions. They support federalism as a process that is entirely consistent with and demanded by the concept of subsidiarity, whatever that might mean. For them the starting point is the union. A federation is then achieved by taking judiciously and carefully a few minor powers and giving them to regional authorities.
In this country, in our naivety, innocence and wonderful state of confusion and ignorance, we believe that we are confronted by a federation that will be constructed at some distant point in the future whereby a few powers are taken from the all-powerful nation states and handed over to a body in Brussels. We think that that is what is in store for us.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: As one who has already contributed to the debate, I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman's comment about interventions. I acknowledge the force of his argument that perhaps in this country we misunderstand the direction of the traffic when we speak about federalist or the federal movement. If the hon. Gentleman compared our set-up with the set-up in Germany, would he not acknowledge that many politicians in Europe who think and act and desire federalism envisage a degree of autonomy at local level in the nation states that is far greater than that which the regions of the nation states in the United Kingdom currently enjoy?

Mr. Gould: I do not have the slightest difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I am a great exponent and supporter of regional devolution. My central point is that under these structures and concepts the starting point is the union. We must grasp that.
I should like to refer to a speech by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He is not in the Committee and I apologise for not alerting him to the fact that I would refer to his speech. It was a good speech and I mean nothing personal when I refer to it. It was intelligent and effective. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member and his speech showed that he is very able. I quote from it simply to illustrate how easy it is to misstate the situation. I also apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I freely

acknowledge that I am using him as a surrogate for equally beside-the-point remarks by hon. Members on both Front Benches.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury said:
I hope that, over the next 10 to 12 years, we can move away from the federal model of Europe towards one which is more confederal, … and instead co-operate, one country with another, ceding limited and defined areas of policy, like the single market for decision on a supranational basis,".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1207.]
On that interpretation of what was happening, the hon. Gentleman urged the Committee to support the Maastricht treaty. There was nothing remarkable about what he said: it is common currency in the mouths of almost all those who support the treaty. I quote it simply to show how mistaken such people are and how easy it is to assume that the process that we are describing and witnessing is one whereby power is being moved up to some federal structure whereas what is in the minds of the creators of the European union is a centralised unitary state from which minor derogations might be made.
The Europe in the treaty is not the Europe that we were promised. It is not an open, decentralised, democratic and welcoming Europe; instead, it is a centralised Europe, a European super-state. It is exclusive because it closes its boundaries to others, it has centralised political institutions and it has all the trappings of a state. People who sneer at those who defend the British state are unaware of the fact that what is being promised is not some wonderful, evolutionary development that will be superior to the nation state, but the nation state writ large.
That is a substantial claim, which I shall try to substantiate. Let us ignore the description "European union" and acknowledge, for simple purposes, that it has a head of state; a chief executive; a defined territory with a common external boundary; its own citizenship, by virtue of the treaty—a superior relationship between each individual and that union; its own Government; its own legislature, elected on a Europe-wide basis; its own supreme court, which is not just an ordinary court, but is the guardian of its own constitution; its own central bank, committed to enforcing its own economic policy; its own foreign policy—and is in the process of acquiring its own defence policy; a single market and, to all intents and purposes, a single economy.
Let us also acknowledge that it provides a common diplomatic and consular representation; that it conducts its external and other trade relations in international negotiations as a single unit; and that it has a comprehensive governmental competence. When Mr. Delors said that competence would extend to 80 per cent. of legislation in the Community, he knew what he was talking about; he did not exaggerate.
The Americans have a saying, "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." I say that the European union is a state—"federal" is a misuse of the language. We are being offered a single, centralised, unitary state. Whatever view we take of that development —and again I have not at stage criticized or condemned that development, but simply described it—we are ill served by those who try to pretend—but who know or, even worse, are too ignorant to acknowledge the truth —that that is not what confronts us. I do not criticise or condemn, I seek only to identify and describe. I believe that what I am describing is of far greater significance than


the Prime Minister and his Cabinet or, indeed, those on either Front Bench, have so far bothered to tell the British people.
One of the most disgraceful aspects of this very long-running saga has been the extent to which we—and I do not mean just the House of Commons, but the peoples of Britain and Europe—have been edged along, step by step, always told that the next step is of little significance and was implicit in what we had done before. When we take that step we are told, "Surely, when you took that last step you must have known that implicit in it was that the next one was to be taken as well."
There are those who have always been honest about their desire for a European super-state. I disagree with them, but I do not complain about the honesty with which they put forward that proposal. Those for whom I reserve a special scorn are the dishonest, who know what is involved but do not want us to see the shape of the whole concept. Even more do I reserve scorn for those who delude themselves, avert their gaze and will not look at the evidence or listen to the argument, but instead prefer to go along with the process. They tell themselves and others that nothing is involved in that process; it is like the United Nations or NATO, just another set of international obligations.
I say to those people, "Delude yourselves as much as you like, but if you are Members of Parliament your self-delusion is unforgivable because not only are you deluding yourselves, you are denying those whom you represent the freedom and the power to make their own decisions. You are denying them the authority that they gave to you to come to this House to make decisions."
It is not too late, I am not a great optimist on this matter, but I believe that it is yet possible for those who will listen to the argument and understand what is happening at least to take the one basic step that should never be ignored—that no irreversible change in the nature of the political entity in which we achieve self-government should be taken without first consulting the British people. That is the real issue raised by the provisions in the treaty on European union.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The House has been treated to three exceptionally powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I am sure that my hon. Friends will not take it amiss if I say that the most impressive was the speech made by the hon. Member for Dagenham. It was a remarkable exposition of the truth about the state in which this country now finds itself, with the prospect of being taken yet another step down the road to European union.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and others of my hon. Friends should breathe a sigh of relief that the hon. Gentleman was not successful in his attempt to become Leader of the Opposition. Had he been, the British people might have been offered the opportunity to choose between Europe and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. As it is, as as most of those who have spoken tonight have said, no such choice existed at the last general election and, sadly, no such choice exists now. There is a unity of purpose between the two Front

Benches, supported by the Liberal Democrats. They are determined to take us down a route that will be a disaster for the future of the United Kingdom.
Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham, I do not for a moment believe that those who are leading us down that route know what they are doing. It is tragic that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken from the Front Bench during our debates clearly do not understand the consequences of the treaty or what European union means. They do not understand the consequences of citizenship of that union. It is a tragedy for all our people.
They are getting advice from many well-meaning and erudite lawyers, but that advice is wrong. The hon. Member for Dagenham, as an ex-teacher of constitutional law, is as qualified as any in the House to criticise what those lawyers advise. It would be otiose of me to add my voice to his. However, I have no doubt that he is right in what he has said—that the union proposed in the treaty is a union in fact, not a union in name.
The wording of article 8 commits nations within the Community to move towards an ever closer union. I know that mathematically it may be possible always to move towards each other but never meet—but in practical terms, that is not possible. Although I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the stage that we have reached, there is no doubt that the definition of union that he gave is the one that we are heading towards and the one that will ultimately be our fate.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench deny that. They say that the union has no legal personality or meaning and that, therefore, to be a citizen of it does not matter. Having heard the arguments against the proposals made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to hear their arguments—because they are flying in the face of something that common sense and our constitutional history and law tell us is fact.
The European union defined in the treaty has a legal reality, because it is justiciable by the European Court of Justice. As the court is supreme, the British Government alone can do nothing to go against the court's findings on matters concerning the rights and duties of a British citizen.
I have exchanged extensive correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and clearly he has been advised that the duties under the treaty do not exist. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said as much earlier, when he claimed that the duties added nothing to those that already exist under our domestic law. Clearly that is untrue. As was rightly pointed out earlier, the European Court is not answerable to any nation state —in fact, it is answerable to no one—in the findings that it reaches. It decided of its own volition to see itself as a tool for the creation of that which other member states would describe as a federal Europe, and which we call a united Europe or a union of Europe.
As that tool, for that purpose, the European Court would not be an independent judicial body. It would be unfit to sit as the ultimate arbiter in legal disputes between nation states or individuals within them; yet, under the treaty of Rome as amended in 1986 and again now, the European Court will enjoy that status.
The duties to which we as citizens of the European union will be subject have yet to be decided. They will not be decided by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, Whitehall, the Government's legal advisers, any


system of British justice, or the terms of any British constitutional past and historic tradition. Instead, they will be decided by a European Court determined to develop the European union—and in so doing, it will supersede and crush the independence of the union's member states. It will be extremely difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to argue otherwise, but I look forward to hearing him try to do so later.
As to voting in municipal elections, I should like a proper answer from the Minister to the question that was twice asked and twice dismissed with laughter by those who see themselves as European fans. "Municipal" has been determined by the European Court before as meaning "national". That may seem absurd to the Committee, as it does to me, but that is a fact. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Minister can guarantee that, when the European Court considers the treaty, it will not decide likewise. If it decides likewise, voting rights will be extended to national parliaments as well as, in British terms, to municipal elections.
It is wholly illogical that someone can reside in this country and vote in all municipal elections and in the elections for the European Parliament yet not be permitted to vote in the parliamentary elections for Westminster. Where on earth is the logic in that?
What advantage does article 8 offer the British people? It gives them rights exercisable in other countries—the right to vote in municipal elections in France, Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland, or Luxembourg. Marvellous. I cannot see any use to the British people in that right. Where is the advantage to counteract the many disadvantages and dangers described this evening? Where is the advantage to the British people in agreeing to become citizens of Europe?

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend's argument influenced by the fact that there are far more British citizens living in France than there are French citizens living in Britain, and far more British citizens in Spain than there are Spanish in Britain—and that they want to retain their national citizenship but pay national and local taxes, and would like a say in the local councils that govern them?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: No, I am not in the slightest moved by my hon. Friend's argument. I believe that British people living in Spain are happy to vote in British parliamentary elections. Many do so, and all those who corresponded with me want to do so. If they live in Spain as British citizens, their allegiance should still be to Britain. Neither their allegiance nor their voting rights should be transferred.

Mr. Ian Taylor: There is a distinction to be drawn between a national and a local election. The reason is at the heart of the European Community's constitution, in which the Council of Ministers is the pre-eminent institution. It is therefore the expression of and subject to the views of the national Parliament—through its Ministers, effectively making decisions.
On the other hand, those of our own citizens who can, under the Single European Act, live anywhere in the Community have a right to protect their interests in terms of local voting. I see no danger or difficulty about voting

in local elections—but I can understand why the Maastricht negotiators restricted voting to national citizens in national elections.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend will remember that my original point was that they may not have done so, and that the interpretation of "municipal" may yet give the right to vote in national elections. As to the distinction between municipal and national voting, I can see better arguments for saying, to use British terminology, "You can vote in the parish in which you live." However, it is not a right such as counteracts the article's dangers. If that is the only advantage to British citizens, against giving away all the sovereignty and right of the House to determine and to secure their rights and liberties, it is a poor trade.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not more likely that we shall find ourselves moving rapidly towards some system of proportional representation? For the past 15 years, it has been Community policy to impose a uniform system.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I must avoid the temptation to be led down an entirely different road, but I take the hon. Lady's point and agree. If we take the Maastricht treaty route, I believe that proportional representation will come to this country.
One danger that has not been directly addressed this evening arises from the provision to use other states' consular representation in countries where we do not have our own. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) rightly pointed out, in any case in which a friendly nation did not have representation, it would be astonishing if our consuls and ambassadorial activities were not placed at its disposal, in the event that its citizens ran into trouble.
The danger is, however, that, once the system has been formalised and the resource has been pooled to some extent, it will be agreed as soon as possible to pool it entirely. The Treasury is very keen on such a move, which would lead to our having far fewer consulates, and probably far fewer embassies, than we have now. We are in grave danger of losing our truly British representation overseas, and of being represented only by the magnificent Greeks and others when our citizens run into trouble. I do not think that most British people would support that, or vote for it. Nor do I think that any of the rights in the treaty benefit British citizens—and, as for the duties, I believe that they could cause enormous pitfalls.
8.30 pm
Earlier speakers mentioned the monarchy. When anyone says that the monarchy, or the monarch in person, is put at risk by the treaty, the response is derision. When, not long ago, I suggested privately to the Prime Minister that the Queen might be brought to book under a European mandate, he said, "I'd like to see them try." The fact is, however, that, if we sign the treaty, the rights and prerogatives of our monarch will be brought into question by some European authority, perhaps even the European Court of Justice—not tomorrow, not next month, but some time in the future. I do not think that the British people want their monarchy to be put in that position, and I personally do not want our monarch to be put in that position.
Is it correct, or—as has been suggested—not correct that the Queen will have a right to vote in municipal elections, in other countries if not in this one? If so, does


she really want that right, and do her people want it for her? What will be the consequence for the role of our monarchy of signing the Maastricht treaty, agreeing to a European union and citizenship of that union and possibly making the Queen a citizen by default?
None of us, wants to be made a citizen of Europe at all. I have yet to meet one person who does—apart from one or two Conservative European fanatics, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who seems to think that he is Europe. I should not say that, when my hon. Friend is not present, especially given that his son and mine are great friends at school. I do not regret saying it, however, and I shall repeat it to my hon. Friend when I next see him.
Some hon. Members are fanatically determined to take us all the way down the European road, and see a federal Europe, a united Europe or a state of Europe as a natural historical consequence; but they are few and far between. That is not the official position of our Government, or of any Minister in our Government, and it certainly is not the position favoured by the people of this country.

Mr. Gill: Surely, under the citizenship provisions, our monarch would no longer be sovereign in this nation. My hon. Friend has some experience of the armed services. To whom, in his opinion, would our service men give their oath of allegiance in such circumstances?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Others have mentioned that subject, in the context of split loyalties and service in our armed forces, or possibly in a European armed force. Although it will not happen overnight, if we go further down the European path, the loyalty of the British subject will clearly be split between Britain and Europe. That will be true not only of members of the armed forces, but of every citizen who takes the oath.
Which is more important, citizenship of the United Kingdom or European citizenship? As the hon. Member for Dagenham pointed out, there can be only one answer: citizenship of Europe must come first, because of the supremacy of the European Court of Justice if for no other reason, but also because it is the larger unit. There will come a time when, for both those reasons, European citizenship will override citizenship of Great Britain.
I do not think that the House—or the other House, or even the monarch—has the right to do that without consulting the British people.
Let me return to the point at which I began. The Bill attempts to remove the sovereignty of the House, and our right to represent the people and defend their liberties as we have done for more than 1,000 years. There has never been a time when we have given foreigners—other nations —the right to determine the laws of this land: the right to say what is and is not a crime in our courts, and to say what can and cannot be done in every aspect of British life. In a newspaper article, the Prime Minister said that he had no intention of doing any such thing. I accept that, but he is doing it. He is doing it because he is thoroughly badly advised, and because he and the Government do not understand the danger of the road down which they are taking us.
I have to add that one of the villains of the piece is Lady Thatcher. In 1986, she forced through the Single European Act, refusing a referendum, refusing to lift the whipping system from any of the votes, refusing to tolerate any opposition to the terms of the act and refusing to

acknowledge that all that took us down the road to what was then called a federal Europe. She believed, and led us to believe, that the Single European Act was no big deal, and that it did not take us further down a road which she herself professed not to favour. Because of that, I—like others—am deeply sceptical about the message that I am receiving seven years later about the next step along the road to European union.

Mr. Cash: rose—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) had reached his peroration. He is out of order, in that he is developing what has effectively become a Second Reading speech. We are dealing with a specific amendment on citizenship.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I take your point, Mr. Morris. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should rephrase the intervention that he is about to make, to bring it within the rules. I was becoming carried away by generalisations, but what I was saying is relevant to clause 1, which is critical to both the Maastricht treaty and the Bill.
We are discussing citizenship of this European creation, and that prompts us to ask what we have created. Of what are we making the British people citizens, without so much as a by-your-leave? Peroration or not, I think that what I am saying is very pertinent to the decision that the House must make: do we or do we not ratify the Government's attempt to create a citizenship that will ultimately override and supersede citizenship of our country? I believe that we should not do so.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a long time. We were at Oxford together, and we have discussed this matter on many occasions. When he refers in this context to Lady Thatcher, would he be good enough to remember that the Foreign Secretary at the time was Lord Howe? I engaged in some illuminating correspondence with him and with Lady Thatcher.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That was an intriguing intervention, Mr. Morris. I am sure that you were greatly relieved by the last sentence. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said, and thank him.
Let me summarise what I have said. If the amendment is accepted, we will alter, dramatically and irreversibly, the way in which the country is governed, now and for all time. If the British people are to become citizens of a Europe and of a European union that develops in the way that those who have created it wish it to develop and that we, as a Government and as a people, will be powerless to prevent, we shall have given away all the rights that this House of Commons fought so hard to achieve over so many years: to represent the people of this country and defend them.
I end with a quotation from a poem by G. K. Chesterton which sets out, better than I could, the exact character of the people to whom we shall be handing over the people of our country;
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.


And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in evening; and they know no songs.
What a fate for a great people. What a definition of a European bureaucrat.

Mr. Shore: My remarks can be brief. The essence of the matter has been brought out in the last two speeches, in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenam (Mr. Gould).
One of the great contrasts in the debate is the approach of Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee, compared with that of those who sit on the Front Benches. I do not mean that those who sit on the Front Benches have entered into a cosy conspiracy, but it is perfectly obvious from the intellectual and analytical approach to the debate that those who sit on the Front Benches do not wish to consider the real meaning of citizenship and union.
In their remarks, they have excluded these two dangerous areas from analysis and discussion. All they want to do is look at the 8a, 8b, 8c and 8d of article 8. I shall refer later to 8a. It was one of my problems when I last debated this matter when the Home Secretary was in the Chamber. I tried to press him about the real meaning of article 8a. He said that we should be coming to it later. However, he said nothing about article 8a earlier today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed to four or five features of citizenship under article 8a. In particular, he pointed to the right to petition the European Parliament. He referred to the establishment of an ombudsman under article 8d. He also drew attention, under paragraph 2 of article 8b, to the right to vote and stand as a candidate. Mention was made of diplomatic representation, or consular representation where we ourselves do not have a representative.
If we were concerned only with these five particular additions, as it were, there would be no reason to have a separate section on citizenship. The right to petition the European Parliament and an ombudsman could easily be included under a later section dealing with institutions. There could be a simple declaration that there would be a right to petition and a declaration that there would be an ombudsman. There is no need for a separate section in the treaty to bring that about. Similarly, in the few cases where we do not have consular or diplomatic representation and another Community country takes it on for us, a new declaration of citizenship is not needed. All that is required is an agreement between member states to be of mutual assistance to each other.
If they were concerned simply with the minor rights that are stated in article 8, there would be no reasons for a statement and a section under the heading "Citizenship of the Union." We are all in the dark about the real meaning of citizenship and the real meaning of union.
I make that point with some emphasis because, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I tabled amendment No. 115, which I am sure that the Committee will wish to support. What we call for in that amendment—I believe that our call is more than justified by the course of the debate—is a Command Paper setting out the implications of this section of the treaty—citizenship of the union—and for it to be laid before Parliament for its approval before this section comes into effect. We should then obtain from

the Government what has so far been withheld from us —a serious explanation of the meaning of citizenship of the union. It is essential for us to have such an explanation.
In a way, this has been a disgraceful debate, in that the Government have not volunteered that explanation. Every now and then, under pressure from other speakers, a Minister has intervened to pull aside the curtain just to give us a glimpse of what lies behind it. That is all we have had from the Government.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not equally shaming that there has not been a series of tough questions from the Opposition Front Bench demanding precisely why the Government do not intend, presumably, to push this amendment to a Division?

Mr. Shore: It is a great pity that the Opposition Front-Bench speakers have not been more critical, stringent, analytical and serious about the issues involved—that they have contented themselves, frankly, with the surface issues and the trivia of the section. They have not raised themselves to the intellectual level that this treaty requires.
All of us have a duty to do our best to understand the meaning and significance of the treaty. We have a duty to our constituents, to ourselves and to the future to do just that and not to be gulled and lulled into acquiescence and silence while great decisions and events proceed to roll over us, only to find, a few years later, that the people who denied the House of Commons the information at the time come forward and say, "Well, it was implicit. You had already agreed to what we knew was in the previous treaty, so why can't you go along with it a little bit further?" That of course will be the case in 1996 when the intergovernmental conference is written into the treaty itself—the next step forward.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that those who are sitting on both Front Benches have heard what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is not the picture even worse than that which he paints? Those on both Front Benches are not being fair to Parliament or to the people.
My right hon. Friend mentioned amendment No. 115, which requires the deposit of a Command Paper in the House of Commons setting out those duties. Is it not usual in Committee for those who sit on the Front Benches to indicate their attitude to serious Back-Bench amendments? Is it not a fact that neither Front Bench—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is here and also the Home Secretary, because I do not like to say things behind people's backs: I always say them to their faces, if I can—made any attempt to address any of the serious amendments that have been tabled and that therefore they have not even dealt with in what is meant to be a serious debate? Do not those very facts bind, undergird and typify all the accusations that my right hon. Friend has just properly made?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope very much that those to whom his remarks are addressed will respond to them. There should indeed have been comments from the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on what I believe to be a necessary amendment. I hope that we shall get them.
One largely ignored aspect of the paragraphs of article 8 is the right to move and reside freely. The Home


Secretary will have heard me speak on this subject on an earlier occasion. I recall that he made some attempt to assist us in a previous debate. However, he did not make it clear what were the rights, limitations and conditions set out in the treaty. I am dealing now exclusively with European Community citizens who have the right to come here, not with third-world people.
In an intervention on 28 January, the Home Secretary said:
On the question of freedom of movement and right of residence here, the right hon. Member is correct that under this Bill, there is freedom for any EC national to live and work here so long as they are self-supporting".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1167.]
He went on to say that there were one or two exceptions based on public health grounds. I find it very difficult to understand the meaning and implications of the phrase "self-supporting".
I know very well that such rules are made for people who come from third-world countries, but as all they have to do is to make what one Conservative hon. Member once described as "the Bangemann wave"—a bit of purple cardboard being waved as a person passes through Customs into the United Kingdom where he has the right to reside—how can such people be identified when they perhaps fall short of the necessary means of sustaining themselves in this country? If they have come here for purely frivolous reasons—for example, they merely want to spend some time here—what powers has the Home Secretary to remove those citizens of the union once they have come into this country? Some of them may be very undesirable.
The last lime that I mentioned this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to Mr. Le Pen, whom we might not wish to have in this country. There are many other undesirables, such as those carrying drugs or those whom we suspect of having a criminal record. How can we control their entry if this ambiguous and almost unqualified right of entry, movement and residence is allowed? I hope that we shall receive further information about what exactly is being granted to such people.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I see that the right hon. Gentleman is pausing and looking in my direction for an intervention. As I have just been criticised for not replying to some questions, I shall intervene this time. Previously, I do not think that either the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or I were allowed to utter two sentences in succession without being interrupted by people pursuing us about the problem of conscription into a European army, which rather got in the way of dealing with the amendments.
Any EC national is free to live and work in the United Kingdom and, as long as they are self-supporting, to remain here as a student, a retired person or for any other purpose. The only exceptions are those
excluded on public policy, public security or public health grounds."—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1167.]
That flows not from the Maastricht treaty but from three directives on the subject of rights of residence which came into effect on 30 June 1992 and which we are about to put formally into domestic law. Contrary to what some hon. Members asserted earlier, the power remains, if necessary, to deport an EC national on the grounds of

public policy, public security or public health, or if they do not qualify for residence here under the directives that I have just cited.

Mr. Shore: That is a helpful reply, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for making plainer what has been pretty obscure so far. However, the right of free entry into this country, unrelated to employment here, simply to reside here, is a considerable right to grant to people, even subject to those conditions. I have a strong feeling that restating it in the context of citizenship of the union is to make a claim for the new European union that it is something like a state.
I know that we shall get into some difficulties about defining a state, but I have often said that the treaty of Maastricht makes it plain to anyone who wishes to observe it that its real character and objective is a union, a state. The citizens of the union are one of the first and most obvious claims for it being a state. One is a citizen of the union and therefore one has rights.
Only a few rights are established under article 8(a), but the important 8(e) states:
The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee before 31 December 1993 and then every three years on the application of the provisions of this Part. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.
On this basis … the Council, acting unanimously … may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Clearly, it is envisaged that there will be an extension of the rights listed under article 8(a) to (d), but we do not know the nature of that extension or what the reciprocal duties are to be.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when it reviewed the working of the Single European Act. We did not always agree, but the concept of the right to move freely within the single market derived from the Single European Act. He is building a defensive argument against the concept of citizenship rights but, in many ways, his argument stems from the principles in the Single European Act which the House agreed. The entitlements of people who are now free to move around the Community are surely welcome—they are certainly welcome at the meetings at which I speak—because they give a clearer understanding of people's protections and expectations, wherever they happen to work and live in the Community.

Mr. Shore: I suspect that the new union is claiming the powers of being a state. It claims the right to give citizenship to all the 300 million people of Europe. As the Home Secretary said, one cannot renounce that citizenship. The people of the nations involved have not been asked. I am not aware of any approach being made to anyone about becoming a citizen of the European union —it is a top-down, not a bottom-up, system. However, we are all to be brought within this chapter.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) says that some of these rights were previously legislated for or given treaty form under earlier provisions, but, in a sense, that makes it even stranger that a separate section headed "Part Two—Citizenship of the Union" should now be included in the treaty.
It is right to re-examine the common provisions to ascertain their purposes. Part two states that the union


shall set itself up—I shall not read all the provisions—but there are four essential objectives. The first is the introduction of a citizenship of the union. Another is to "assert its identity" on the international scene. I have not yet heard anyone explain what that identity is or what is the relationship between the union and the Community. Will it be the union that will sign treaties in future and act for the whole Community? We have not had an explanation of those matters from the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary. I think that we should. That adds still more relevance to amendment No. 115, which stands in my name and to which I have already drawn attention. I strongly recommend hon. Members—including those on my own Front Bench—to support that amendment.

9 pm

Mr. Rowe: When you were in the Chair earlier today, Mr. Morris, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described you as part of the procedural police. I must say that I am grateful to you for fingering my collar at this moment.
The Maastricht treaty is a treaty, and treaties mark a particular moment in an evolutionary process. History shows just how often treaties are abrogated if they are seen to be unduly oppressive or if it is deemed to be to the short-term advantage of one of the signatories to abrogate them. The treaty of Union between England and Scotland has lasted nearly 300 years and has evolved remarkably successfully into something different from what the original signatories envisaged. As some Opposition Members constantly remind us, however, if sufficient numbers of Scots chose to rewrite that treaty, it would be possible to rewrite it.
What has been the keynote of today's debate? Speaker after speaker has created a totem—a Baba Yaga—to inspire fear about what might happen. We would be a greater deal better off if we discussed the treaty as it is rather than its possible long-term evolution into something that frightens children.

Mr. Sweeney: Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should discusss such matters because article 8 provides for the scope of rights and therefore of reciprocal duties to be extended? It is our duty to look ahead.

Mr. Rowe: I have no doubt that there are merits in looking ahead to some extent but, after each treaty that has been made so far, the European Community has evolved in a very different way from the way in which the signatories to that treaty expected it to evolve. It is always enjoyable listening to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and others creating wonderful chimeras only to shoot them down later, but it is not necessarily particularly illuminating.
On the 50th anniversary of the opening of the second front, we should consider for a moment what the concept of citizenship in the European context is all about. Ours is a position of extraordinary luxury. We are the first generation this century that has not been involved obligatorily in a major European war. Millions of people have been killed and injured or have had their homes destroyed, and the legacy of those conflicts is tearing mainland Europe apart yet again.
It is in that context that, by hook or by crook, we need to find devices to prevent that from happening again. No one with any idea of how human nature works or how political processes create institutions would suggest that what the Maastricht treaty postulates is perfect or could be perfect or is thought to be perfect even by those who signed it. It represents one credible way of diminishing the risk that our children and grandchildren may once again be faced with a holocaust of the kind that has set Europe on fire twice this century.
We have heard some persuasive but, I believe, not wholly well-founded arguments about citizenship. Two powerful ideas about citizenship have held most of Europe in their grip for centuries. The first was the idea of the civitas dei—the city of God. In political terms, all those who subscribed to the Christian Church—whether they believe in its principles or not—were citizens of the city of God. That was an attempt by philosophers and politicians to overcome the tribal and national battle lines that were constantly threatening to plunge, and often plunging, parts of Europe into war.
Similarly, the holy Roman empire was another idea which ended in complete mockery, described in the end as being not holy nor Roman nor an empire. But it had existed as an idea for about 1,000 years. The idea of it was the same—that somehow, if only there could be sufficient agreement among the great powers of Europe, they might be prevented from plunging one another into war.
For that reason, the Maastricht treaty creates a citizenship of the union. There is no shame in saying that it is, at least in part, powerful as a philosophical idea and that the rights and duties attached to that citizenship are of less importance than the philosophical concept that we in the European Community are all citizens with equal rights and importance, and that if it is made to work it will protect minorities, remembering that the dreadful failure to do that has torn Yugoslavia apart and bids fair to tear apart other countries, inside and outside the European Community.

Mr. Duncan-Smith: My hon. Friend is drawing some interesting parallels. What is so unstable about our belief in the concept of citizenship of the existing nation states in Europe that makes us feel that we must enable others to feel on a parity with us, or we with them, when all of us could exist in the single fact that we are equal and not greater than?

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend asks a good question which must be answered on the ground that many people, particularly the younger generation in all the countries of the European Community, have a growing understanding of the fact that the problems with which we must grapple are greater than the problems that can more easily be faced on the basis of the nation state alone. When considering matters of environmental pollution and the protection of wildlife—two matters that particularly concern the young —or the question of education and training for a market that enables people to work from one end of the EC to the other, it is believed that there is something greater than the purely national dimension.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another lesson to be learned from European history, from the holy Roman empire right through to the Austrian Hapsburg empire that collapsed in 1914, is that attempting to push in an imperial fashion the differences of culture,


policy, politics, ethnic divisions and everything that constitutes the nation state is as much the cause of war as nation states themselves?

Mr. Rowe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I take issue with the implication of his question, in that I do not believe that there is such a great push. This is a question of politicians from all over the Community coming together in the knowledge that large numbers of their constituents care about a stable, peaceful, prosperous Europe working together.

Mr. Jim Lester: My hon. Friend should bear in mind the practical point that, under the present Community arrangements, many British citizens choose in their retirement to live in various parts of Europe. They want to use their right to vote in a local election if they are currently resident in, for example, Spain. There is absolutely no reason why the add-on of European citizenship should not be of enormous practical value to those who choose to live anywhere in the Community.

Mr. Rowe: That is absolutely right. Increasing numbers of people will be working on long-term contracts and in many other ways playing a major part in countries other than the country of their birth. One of the great features of citizenship is that it is valueless unless it secures some protection for the citizen.
One of the points about the Maastricht treaty is that the whole idea of seeking diplomatic protection from a country in the European Community in which one's own country has no diplomatic representation seems to accord directly with the concept of protecting the citizen. It is an exciting concept. What is more, when two nation states or 12 nation states come together in such a treaty to create the sort of common citizenship which we are now adumbrating, it does not by any means necessarily carry with it a loss.
Over the centuries, the Scots have gained considerable benefit from being citizens of the United Kingdom rather than simply of Scotland. Some Scots disagree with that, but there are so many of them on the Labour Front Bench that I am sure I shall command some support.
We must remember two things when we attack the concept of European citizenship simply on the basis of the nation state. The first is that the nation state is a relatively modern phenomenon. The suggestion that nation states survive and prosper only if they can enslave or, at any rate, take over large parts of the rest of the world to finance themselves is arguable. What has happened is that the great nation states of Europe have been forced to withdraw to their own frontiers. They have lost their imperial back-up and are now—in my view, sensibly—looking to see whether there is some other way of organising their citizenship and general political relationships which will supervene and prevent yet again such appalling competition.
There is no inherent reason why citizens should necessarily treat one another well. One need only watch in microcosm the way in which hon. Members treat one another from time to time to realise that being a citizen of a single entity is by no means a guarantee that people will necessarily get on especially well together. However, it substantially increases the chance of co-existence in a peaceful and stable way. That is what we are talking about in this debate.
The concept of the European citizen is one which will help us with one of the other great problems which the European Community faces. Let us not kid ourselves that at present there is a mixture of detachment and glee when we learn that there are terrorist gangs in Germany and that ETA, in the Basque country, is blowing up people. The detachment is that it does not really matter, it has nothing to do with us, it is a long way away and is it not reassuring that other countries have the same sort of problem as we have in Northern Ireland?
Hon. Members are looking at me in shock. If they are honest with themselves, they will know that, when they see something going wrong elsewhere, many people think, "At least it means that we are not as bad as we thought we were. We are not alone in the problem." Until we can overcome that, and until we genuinely care as much when things go wrong for citizens of the rest of the European Community as when they do for citizens of our own country, we shall never have the wholehearted European co-operation which is necessary to eradicate such menaces. European citizenship is a concept on which we can build to educate our children into thinking about foreigners, and in particular European foreigners, in a way different from that which we have suffered so far.
The rights which we are accorded under the European citizenship provisions are good things. It is a good thing that we can go to a European ombudsman. It is a good thing that we can turn to diplomatic representatives in countries where we have no representation of our own. It is a good thing that we can involve ourselves closely in the local affairs of the country in which we reside so that we feel able and want to take part in local politics. Those rights are of value, and I strongly support them.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a case for European citizenship on the basis that it will make us more internationalist and overcome national boundaries and national enmities, but does he agree that the main force for European citizenship and European federalism is a sense of competition and fear of the Americans and the Japanese? Should not the conclusion of my hon. Friend's argument be that, if we are to have a great international utopia, one thing that we should not have is a federal Europe which will stand out against and compete with other countries, particularly perhaps third-world countries?

Mr. Rowe: At no point in my remarks did I mention the word "federalism". One of the important features of the Maastricht treaty, the negotiating procedures that led up to it and the negotiating machinery on which it and its successors will depend is that it leaves plenty of room for change and evolution. The Maastricht treaty is not the type of treaty which the people who signed the Single European Act expected it to be. The European Community which the Maastricht treaty envisages is not likely to be exactly the type of Community which will emerge in the end. It is a staging post to a destination which we cannot precisely define. The instability in the present exchange rate mechanism is a good demonstration of how it is extremely difficult to predict exactly how man-made political structures will evolve.
There has been a lot of talk about the possibility that various unwelcome duties will be forced on European citizens. One example is conscription. The only occasions


on which there was conscription in the United Kingdom were when twice this century we were forced into it to repair the damage done by treating other Europeans as alien, strange, hostile and bloody-minded. In the end we came into conflict with them. There is much greater danger that conscription and other duties will be forced on us if we fail to make the concept of European citizenship work than if we do not.

Mr. Winnick: This is undoubtedly one of the most important parts of the treaty. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to it as a staging post. In my view, it is a paving measure for a federal union—certainly a federal arrangement along very centralised lines, in some respects like the federal arrangements in the United States of America. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—during the Second Reading debate, I believe—illustrated the situation with reference to the United States, which, he said, had an arrangement suitable for Europe. That is the right hon. Gentleman's view, but it is certainly not mine.
Citizenship of the union will be automatic. There will be no opting-out provision. No one will be in a position to say, "I do not want to be a part of this union." When the question of the Queen's position was raised, the Home Secretary said that he was not sure about it. But then he confirmed what the position must be. Would not the situation be odd and invidious if the Queen were the only United Kingdom citizen who was not a citizen of the union? Obviously she, like all her subjects, will be involved. Duties will be set out, and it is clear that there will be obligations.
This is undoubtedly the most fundamental change in citizenship, yet the Government do not have any mandate whatsoever to proceed. When the Prime Minister is questioned about the matter of a mandate he refers to the last general election. He said that during the campaign it had been made clear that the Government were in favour of Maastricht. But everyone knows that that was not an issue in the general election. Can anyone—and we were all candidates—recall any clash between the two main parties about this issue? Indeed, it is difficult to recall a particular mention of it in any party political broadcast. Any reference to it was made in passing at most.
No one—whatever side of the argument he takes—says that this is not an important issue. No one—not even the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—says that it is a relatively minor matter. What we have been arguing about for some time is whether this treaty is in the interests of Britain. Everybody—whatever position he takes—agrees that this is an issue of the greatest possible constitutional significance. It cannot be said too often that such a step requires some authority or mandate from the British people.

The Chairman: Order. Indeed it cannot be said, as it is not relevant to this amendment, which is specifically about citizenship.

Mr. Winnick: I accept your ruling, Mr. Morris. I have been making the point merely that, in respect of this issue, some mandate or authority from the British people is required. That will continue to be my view, as it will continue to be the view of others.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), have made much of the failure of the nation state. If the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was implying that peace will be firmly established in Europe only if we proceed along the Maastricht road, I find his case difficult to accept. We had the cold war for more than 40 years, and it did not become a hot war. Fortunately, Europe was not destroyed, as the super-powers were determined, even at the height of the cold war, that it should not become a hot war. Korea was the nearest we came, in a limited way, to having a hot war. I cannot accept the argument that this is the only way of guaranteeing peace and security in Europe.
In some respects suppose that I disagree with other hon. Members who are against the Bill and who may be described—fairly or otherwise—as little Englanders. I am not a little Englander and no one has ever accused me of being one. I hope that the stand that I took on the Gulf war and other issues well before that demonstrates that it has never been my view that Britain should adopt au isolationist stance. Britain fought a war and stood virtually alone for two years because we were determined not to remain isolated and because we recognised our role in Europe.
I also accept the obligations and duties that arise from our membership of the United Nations. NATO and the rest. We should not cut ourselves off from Europe or the continent and go into a corner and stop worrying about the rest of Europe. That is not my point of view and I doubt whether it is that of any other hon. Member.
Although I was not enthusiastic about our membership of the European Community and had strongly disagreed with it and campaigned against it—I hope this is order —once the British people had decided by a majority in June 1975 that they were in favour of our continuing membership, I accepted the decision. Moreover, having been in the Community for some years it would not be in the national interest for us to leave. I therefore accept that we should remain in the Community.
The argument is not about whether we should remain in the Community, but about whether we should proceed along a road that would seriously diminish the independence of this country. Bearing in mind our membership of NATO and the United Nations and the obligations that they impose, some people have said that we should not worry over much about the treaty because it is virtually the same. It is nothing of the kind. Our membership of the United Nations dates from 1945, and I believe that NATO was started in 1949, but they in no way diminish the independence of this country. There was no question of our having any duties that would diminish the authority of this House and the independence of this country. If that had been the case there would no doubt have been bitter controversy at the time. Therefore, it is not an honest argument to say that the road that we are taking now is virtually the same as our membership of the United Nations and NATO. It is nothing of the kind.
To a large extent we are debating whether Britain shall remain an independent country in any meaningful sense. I am not saying that we are going to become a sort of satellite. I have no desire to exaggerate the argument. I do not doubt that, if the treaty becomes law, the House will continue to debate all sorts of issues. It would be odd if it were otherwise. However, on many issues of fundamental importance, including defence and foreign policy, the final


authority will no longer rest in this House but outside it. If that is not a matter of supreme constitutional importance I do not know what is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) seems surprised by what I have said. I am only surprised at his reaction. I do not believe that I was elected to—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech. He has hardly mentioned the word "citizenship" and has not referred to amendment No. 12. I understand that he feels strongly about the issues, but he must address the amendment.

Mr. Winnick: I accept what you say Mr. Morris, but the citizenship of the union, as set out in the article that we are discussing, would severely diminish the independence of this country and the authority of this House and that is part of my argument.
Article 8b relates to candidates for municipal elections and European elections. It is argued that it will not apply to those outside the United Kingdom who wish to stand for election to Parliament. Why not? I do not see the logic in that. If it is argued that someone outside the United Kingdom has a right to stand here for local elections or the European Parliament—as set out in article 8b—how can it be argued that he should not also stand for Parliament?
9.30 pm
Even if, in the context of today's debate, municipal does mean local, surely once the law is passed, the obvious logic is that, if people outside the United Kingdom can stand for local elections and for a British constituency in the European Parliament, they should be able to stand for Parliament. Once we pass certain measures, it is not long before other measures are taken which further diminish and erode our independence.
It is dangerous for Parliament to be out of step with the wishes of the majority of people on a major constitutional issue. It is for that reason, among others, that I fully support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), under which the Government would be asked to set out in a Command Paper the duties and obligations of citizenship of the union. That is a reasonable amendment, and it is unfortunate that the Government are unlikely to support it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the point of having a White Paper when article 8e states that, every three years, the Council can add to the rights and duties of European citizens? We are not debating a static position involving merely the right to vote. Under article 8e, the duties and responsibilities can be extended every three years. Would it not be better to have a White Paper published every three years to take account of exciting new duties and responsibilities that the EC decides that we have to undertake?

Mr. Winnick: I agree. The Government's first step should be to adopt the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, but I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that that should not be the end of it. If the treaty becomes law, the least that we should require of the Government of the day is that there should be a continuing review of the position. We should press for that.
I am sufficiently pessimistic to accept that the Bill and the treaty will become law. If that happens, the controversy will not end. Hon. Members who support the Government and the Labour Front Bench team believe that by the end of February or March the Bill will have completed its Committee stage, then go to another place and afterwards receive its Third Reading, but the controversy will not end. The issue will become and remain a festering sore in British politics. If authority and independence is taken away from Britain and the House without the consent of the majority of British people, the issue will remain one of great importance and controversy, and will undoubtedly cause many sharp clashes both inside and outside the House.
For those reasons, I believe that the Government should recognise the depth of feeling among many of us. I do not know whether we are in the majority, but to take the steps that the Government propose, as set out in article 8, without the mandate or authority of the British people is wrong, and can only cause tremendous resentment outside the House. Therefore, I hope that at least the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and others will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Shepherd: I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 12, which is why I listened with particular care to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I expected an analysis of the text of the article, given that the Opposition propose to remove all the citizenship provisions.
What I found, however, was that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advanced with a powder puff and caressed the provisions set out in the treaty. So reassuring were his arguments for the removal of this part of it that the Home Secretary thought it unnecessary to argue in favour of the treaty thereafter. We witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the Home Secretary expressing his admiration for a speech by an hon. Member who was trying to remove the citizenship provisions from the treaty and who did it so persuasively that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to curtail his own speech.
We have heard no analysis, either by Ministers or Opposition spokesmen, of what citizenship means or how it affects the Queen in Parliament. When asked, the Home Secretary was not sure whether the Queen would become a citizen of Europe. Very little thought has been given to that when preparing the briefings that the Home Secretary receives from the Department. We know from the fanciful little cards sent to Members of Parliament from the Home Office that royal matters concern the Home Secretary, yet no inquiry has satisfied him to enable him to answer with confidence questions about the position of the Queen under the treaty.
We all know that we are forming a union. If I were a bureaucrat, the one provision of the treaty that I would want to secure above all others would be that governing citizenship. It is the one that tells us our relationship to the state, and it is the one that I want to discuss this evening.
I was elected as a Conservative, and as such I have always believed that, at the heart of our philosophy—to this I subscribe wholeheartedly—is the maintenance of our constitution, which is a democratic, self-governing constitution. That is the fundamental line of trust linking all Conservatives. But the Government propose that we


become citizens of a new political structure in which, as if by an afterthought, the Queen is apparently to become a citizen.
These are profound matters, touching on the heart of nationhood and citizenship. Ultimately, they are a question of sentiment. Despite the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about international law, we all know that what lies behind these relationships is the question of who we are—our sentiment. I am glat to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I am one by birth, but more importantly by sentiment. The Government trivialise that.
I suggest that from sentiment follow all manner of things. I support the laws of the state of which I am a citizen. This I do gladly and by an exercise of free choice. When I am told that I am to be made a citizen of anywhere else, I feel like Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians must have felt when they were told that they were to be made citizens—to use the language of this treaty, irrevocably and irreversibly—of the USSR.
So there is no choice in these matters, and it is impertinent of Front-Bench spokesmen to tell Parliament, which is the sovereign representative of the will of the people, that the Government propose to make us citizens of somewhere else without seeking our advice first. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked by what mandate such an important change was to be made.
This is the one proposal in the treaty above all others for which I suggest the sanction of the individuals who will be most affected—the citizens—must be sought. There has been no mandate on that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's sincerity and passion are well understood in the Committee. Two matters in his speech puzzle me. He says that at the heart of his understanding of British citizenship is the concept of being, within the constitution, part of a representative governmental system. As a result of that system, we have a Government who won an election and who made clear their commitment to the treaty. That is my first puzzle about what the hon. Gentleman places at the centre of his thinking of what it is to be British—he rejects the result of the election.
Secondly, we live under a constitutional system in which the rights of citizenship are not defined. The hon. Gentleman describes them in almost metaphysical terms, and that is correct. There is a much greater definition of what citizenship might mean in the context of a framework constitution for the European union than we have had in 700 years of British history.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not the maker of the speech for the Liberal Democrat spokesman, because at least his intervention contained some reflection. I was speaking about democratic self-government being the heart of our constitution. I am truly surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an election is the end of the democratic process or the conferment of a mandate as such.
All that was achieved at the last election was what in constitution terms is referred to as a general mandate. I am arguing for a specific mandate, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have understood that. That is a constitutional concept in our history. It is referred to by authorities, and for the past 25 years this country has sought to exert it on profound constitutional issues. That happened first under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), secondly under the premiership of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and thirdly under the premiership of Mr. Callaghan.
For every major constitutional change during those periods, it was considered necessary to seek a specific mandate from those who would be affected. Therefore, that is part of our constitutional requirements. The fact that it was fudged in 1985 and the fact that the Government run away from it now is understandable. We are in the hands of ideologues who wish to force through this measure without regard to the—[Interruption.] We know the fashions as they come and go, and I well understand why we had South Sea bubbles.
I have watched the Government come to their knees on the ERM, and I watch them now as they prepare to force through a contention of citizenship for which the Home Secretary could not even wave a concept. We have not had one testing thing about what it amounts to, nor did we have any indication as to where it leads.
Each of us in his heart—because it is a metaphysical concept—must ask, what is nationality, what is citizenship, to whom do we owe allegiance, and why? I owe allegiance because I am confident that all the laws and rules of this land are ultimately under the control of the citizens. It has nothing to do with the mere sanction of an election, because if I as a Conservative am allowed to misappropriate Burke yet again, I would say that it was the process of consent and acquiesence that Governments and laws seek. Without consent, they have no foundation, and they are seen to become unjust.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was advancing that argument, in essence he was saying that these matters cannot be processed without the consent of the people. Citizenship is the relationship of us to the state. How can it be that the Government cannot advance one argument in favour of the necessity to subordinate current citizenship, given by birth and allegiance, to European citizenship?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Shepherd: I should like to continue.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about the construction of the state. If the United Kingdom, as one of the high contracting parties, is a subordinate constituent of what those high contracting parties are forming—the union of Europe—the citizenship of one of those subordinate constituents must be subordinate to that of the greater proposition. That is the only point that has been established this evening.
Therefore, in all matters that affect the union, where it has competence which is not a settled and finished matter, which is extended—I would say grotesquely—in the treaty of Maastricht, there has been a profound change. That means that United Kingdom citizenship must of itself be


subordinate. Therefore, my first duty to support the laws and maintain the structure will be to the union of Europe rather than to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Whitney: Earlier in his remarks, my hon. Friend asked himself two questions—what is nationality, and what is citizenship? He was right to ask those questions. However, he should accept the definition of European citizenship, which, as we all agree, is a new concept and something that we must learn to develop and understand. He should also acknowledge that the treaty clearly defines nationality. I understand his propensity—

Mr. Nicholas Baker: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is well known that it was anticipated that most hon. Members would be here at 10 o'clock for a vote. Because the Government have got their people here first, they are trying to have the Division early. Why cannot we keep the debate going until 10 o'clock, when most hon. Members will be here?

The Chairman: The timing of the Division is nothing to do with the Chair.

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I will take it later.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Order. I will take it in a minute—[Interruption.]

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some of us have been here for 28 years. Do you really think that it is adding to the dignity of democracy that, for the fifth time, we have had a major debate but no ministerial response? How on earth is it possible for you to consider a closure motion when there has been no ministerial reply to fundamental and important issues raised in the debate?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give reasons from the Chair.

Mr. Rowlands: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have a simple question. When will you refuse a closure motion from the Government?

The Chairman: I have already said that the Chair does not give reasons, but I have refused a number of closures.

Mr. Budgen: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be very grateful—and, indeed, you might be very grateful—if you took the opportunity to explain what you meant when you said that the question of the time was not within the discretion of the Chair. There is a rising sense of frustration on the Conservative Benches. We feel that you should explain your position so that we may decide our action—

The Chairman: Order. It is very clear. I do not choose the time at which a closure motion is moved. That is the point.

Mr. Budgen: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Surely you decide when to accept an application, and the time may be relevant to your consideration.

The Chairman: I accept a closure motion when I believe that there has been a full and fair debate.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 285, Noes 267.

Division No. 136]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alton, David
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, Dudley


Booth, Hartley
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bowden, Andrew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gillan, Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clappison, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heald, Oliver


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Couchman, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Dafis, Cynog
Hill, James (Southampton Test)






Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


Maclennan, Robert
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Tredinnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Trend, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tyler, Paul


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Neubert, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Welsh, Andrew


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Whitney, Ray


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wigley, Dafydd


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Mrs Irene
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ainger, Nick
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Enright, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Austin-Walker, John
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Bayley, Hugh
Fraser, John


Beckett, Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gardiner, Sir George


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Godsiff, Roger


Blair, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gould, Bryan


Boyce, Jimmy
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gunnell, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hain, Peter


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike


Butcher, John
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hawksley, Warren


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heppell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cash, William
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jamieson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jessel, Toby


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cran, James
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Knapman, Roger


Denham, John
Legg, Barry


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)






Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lord, Michael
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


McWilliam, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Milburn, Alan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sweeney, Walter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mudie, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Turner, Dennis


O'Hara, Edward
Vaz, Keith


Olner, William
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


O'Neill, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pawsey, James
Wareing, Robert N


Pendry, Tom
Watson, Mike


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L.
Wilkinson, John


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilson, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Prescott, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wise, Audrey


Purchase, Ken
Worthington, Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wray, Jimmy


Randall, Stuart
Wright, Dr Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. John Spellar.


Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 75, Noes 280.

Division No. 137]
[10.1 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cohen, Harry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Connarty, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Corbyn, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Cran, James


Callaghan, Jim
Cryer, Bob





Davidson, Ian
Pickthall, Colin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Gardiner, Sir George
Rowlands, Ted


Gerrard, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gill, Christopher
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Simpson, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Spearing, Nigel


Harvey, Nick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hawksley, Warren
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Sweeney, Walter


Hunter, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jessel, Toby
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Knapman, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lewis, Terry
Wilkinson, John


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Livingstone, Ken
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lord, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Madden, Max
Wise, Audrey


Marlow, Tony



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Pawsey, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alton, David
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Congdon, David


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dafis, Cynog


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
French, Douglas


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gale, Roger






Gallie, Phil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
MacKay, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Maclean, David


Gillan, Cheryl
Maclennan, Robert


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Maitland, Lady Olga


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Malone, Gerald


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mans, Keith


Hague, William
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mates, Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Harris, David
Merchant, Piers


Haselhurst, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hawkins, Nick
Milligan, Stephen


Hayes, Jerry
Mills, Iain


Heald, Oliver
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hendry, Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Moss, Malcolm


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jack, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Page, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patnick, Irvine


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Pickles, Eric


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Key, Robert
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Kilfedder, Sir James
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Richards, Rod


Kirkwood, Archy
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robathan, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knox, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Leigh, Edward
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sackville, Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lidington, David
Salmond, Alex


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luff, Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Shersby, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Sims, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Soames, Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spink, Dr Robert
Tyler, Paul


Spring, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Stewart, Allan
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Sykes, John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomason, Roy
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

COMBINED TRANSPORT NETWORK

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8066/92, relating to the establishment of a combined transport network; notes that the growth of a combined transport network is in line with Government objectives, provided that it is consistent with the need to ensure fair competition between freight transport modes; and endorses the Government's aim seeking agreement to cost effective measures aimed at promoting efficient combined transport services.

TIMESHARE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8043/92, relating to the protection of purchasers in contracts relating to the utilisation of immovable property on a timeshare basis; and supports the Government's view that the draft directive is a necessary measure of consumer protection which, subject to some amendment, will be acceptable.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Bomb Damage (Newtownbreda)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. John D. Taylor: I am delighted to be called at this early hour, albeit to talk about treason in the United Kingdom. Treason has just been committed by the Government in the earlier debate on Maastricht—[Interruption] I am now referring to a second aspect of treason.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) used the word "treason".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear what the right hon. Member said. If he used that word, I have no doubt that he will wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Taylor: I am talking about treason in the United Kingdom by the IRA, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight's debate is about bombing by terrorists in the United Kingdom, especially in the village of Newtownbreda, in my constituency. Treason is bad, and that is why hon. Members in all parts of the House deplore treason when it is committed, and we know when it is committed.
On 23 September last year I left my constituency and caught the evening plane to come to the House for a special sitting to debate the decision by Her Majesty's Government to leave the exchange rate mechanism, a decision which most hon. Members welcomed, even though at the time some people opposed it. Those who opposed it and referred to it as black Wednesday now gratefully refer to it as white Wednesday. Such is the change in politics in this country.
As I arrived at my home in Westminster that night, I switched on the 11 o'clock news to learn that there had been a major explosion in what was described as south Belfast. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the Chamber. Naturally, I was anxious to obtain more details about the explosion, so I listened to the midnight news. To my horror, I discovered that the explosion was not in south Belfast but in Strangford, in my constituency, at the forensic science laboratory in the village of Newtownbreda.
It was a major explosion, one of the largest to have occurred in the United Kingdom. It resulted in damage to 1,002 homes in my constituency, in Brerton crescent, in the large Belvoir estate and in widespread areas of Newtownbreda. I came to my office at 6.30 the next morning. I went on Downtown Radio and BBC Radio Ulster to broadcast to the people in my constituency concern about what had happened and to advise them what should be done. We then had the debate in the House on the economic crisis facing the United Kingdom.
On the next day, Friday, I flew back to Northern Ireland with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who visited Belvoir. I am glad to say that on the following day, Saturday, she visited Belvoir for another three hours, accompanied by the local Presbyterian minister, Rev. Brian Black, who took her

around many of the homes. For the first time she saw the reality of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland. I shall quote what the hon. Lady said at that time:
It is just devastating. One had to be on the spot to really appreciate the cruelty of this terrorist attack in a residential area. I am overwhelmed by the kind welcome given to me and by the sheer guts of the people of Newtownbreda to overcome this criminal attack. I am very impressed at the quick response of the various support agencies, but obviously much more needs to be done.
That IRA attack on the forensic science laboratory in Newtownbreda damaged 1,002 homes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that had happened in your constituency or in any constituency in England, it would have caused a national crisis and would have attracted the Government's urgent attention. It certainly would have gained the headlines in all the national newspapers. I am sorry to say that such a major event in Northern Ireland is almost dismissed in London.
Elderly and young people were made homeless. Forty-two houses were totally destroyed and made uninhabitable. Five months after the explosion, many people are still not back in their homes.
The IRA commits outrages almost daily in Northern Ireland. It has been happening for 23 years. The majority community in Northern Ireland is critical of the Government's failure to bring the terrorists under control, but that is not the subject of tonight's debate. The subject is the specific problem in the Newtownbreda and Belvoir area. The people of Belvoir were by far the largest section of the community affected by the bomb. They have responded magnificently to the challenge from the IRA.
On the Sunday after the bomb explosion, I went to the united church service in the Presbyterian church hall. The Presbyterian church was destroyed, as was the Methodist church and the Church of Ireland parish church. The Church of Ireland parish church is now in ruins, but I am glad to say that it is rising from the ashes. The other two churches are now back in operation.
I went to the united church service and was greatly encouraged by the spirit of the community. At the same time, a second service was held in the Belvoir activity centre. That service had been organised by the Church of Ireland. My wife attended the service. She came home with the same experience of a people who would not be beaten into the ground by the IRA terrorists, but it is easy to say that. None the less, families had great economic and social problems and stress was placed on them. Those are challenges which the Government and politicians face.
Of the 1,002 houses which were damaged, 42 were damaged to the extent that the people had to get out. Many of those people are still not back in their homes. I have a parliamentary reply to confirm that 10 per cent. of the houses—more than 100 houses—were badly damaged. Of the 1,002 houses that were damaged, 428 were privately owned. Belvoir is a mixed estate in which some houses have been acquired by the residents and are now privately owned. The others remain under the ownership of the public housing authority, which in Northern Ireland is called the Housing Executive.
I must place on record the appreciation of the community at large of the response of the public authorities. Under the leadership of Castlereagh borough council, of which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I have the honour to be members, the Belvoir activity centre became the nerve centre for the


reaction to that IRA terrorist outrage. The council is particularly proud of that centre, which opened one year ago.
At the centre, the Housing Executive, the Law Society, the social services agencies, the Northern Ireland Office and other public institutions set up offices to help and advise people on how best to respond to their terrible experience. I understand that experience because I have had five properties bombed by the IRA in the past 23 years. I know exactly the procedures through which one must go. In the early 1970s, when I was a member of a firm of consulting engineers and architects, I acted in a professional capacity on behalf of more than 500 claimants for compensation and settled their claims, I hope successfully. We dealt with the old county councils and subsequently with the Northern Ireland Office.
I have praised the various public agencies. I should also like to mention the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the two local community policemen had not seen the bomb in the van outside the forensic department, tragedy would have taken place. Bad as the bomb was, the great thing is that no lives were lost. We can replace bricks and rebuild homes—it is happening—but we can never re-create lives. Luckily, lives were not lost. That is why religious services were held in Belvoir. They were services of thanksgiving that, despite the misery of the bomb explosion, no human life had been lost.
Those who live in privately owned homes are still suffering. The Housing Executive carried out a first-class operation. It moved in immediately and made all houses, rented and privately owned, watertight by putting tarpaulin over the roofs. It then proceeded to concentrate on repairing its houses—about 500 out of the 1,002. It rightly took pleasure in stating before Christmas that all its 500 houses were repaired and the people were back in them. That was to the credit of the Housing Executive. That must be placed on record, because the bomb damage was a major challenge for the executive. It was a major crisis.
I am sorry to say that the problem continues for the private owners. I foresaw that and stated it on the radio at 6.30 on the morning after the explosion, fewer than 12 hours after the explosion. I warned that the problem would be the owner-occupiers. From my experience of dealing with such problems, I realised what the problems were. I realised, such was the extent of the damage, involving more than 400 private owners, that there would be a major problem.
On 23 October 1992, one month after the bomb exploded, the Northern Ireland Office had received claims for compensation from the occupiers of 890 out of the 1,002 houses damaged. I am sorry to say that, a month after the bombing, each claimant had received an average of only £30. On 6 November 1992, of the 42 private house owners, only five had received more than £2,000 in compensation. Yet on 24 September, one day after the bombing, the Government were able to state that 10 per cent. of the 1,000 houses had been badly damaged, and that 42 were wrecked.
Anyone with experience in the construction industry, or in the allied professions, would have known from walking around those homes that many would need expenditure of between £20,000 and £30,000 for them to be restored and

made habitable again. Given that, the Northern Ireland Office should have been able to make an immediate interim award of £10,000 or £15,000 to the people concerned so that they could start to rebuild their homes. People had lost their roofs; their ceilings had caved in; their kitchens were wrecked; their beds had been destroyed; their sitting rooms were in crisis. Some were sleeping on the floor, with water dripping on them. Emergency action was required in the form of interim compensation awards; but such action was not taken.
No ordinary person in Belvoir, Newtownbreda, Belfast or anywhere in England can produce £30,000 overnight to restore his home. A person who loses his home, as a result of a bombing or any other tragedy, will need money with which to restore it; but after securing that money, he is caught in a trap—unless he has a very kind bank manager.
The public authority homes—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes—were being repaired steadily and efficiently; all credit is due to the executive for that. Meanwhile, the owner-occupiers were waiting for their interim compensation awards, and receiving very little. As I have said, they were receiving an average of £30 each a month after the bombing, and on 6 November five had received just over £2,000 apiece. Even on 10 December —just before Christmas—only three applicants in Belvoir had received an interim award of more than £10,000.
When I went to the midnight Church of Ireland communion service on Christmas eve and met the people again, they confirmed that little progress had been made. Of the 42 who had lost their homes, 14 were living in caravans on that frosty night, in dreadful conditions—surrounded by muck and quagmire, running up big electricity and heating bills in the mobile homes to which they were not used, and still waiting for major compensation.
The Government must respond quickly to the needs not just of those in Housing Executive homes but of those in privately owned homes. The Northern Ireland Office, and the Northern Ireland compensation agency, must adopt a new approach to home owners. To its credit, the Northern Ireland Office recognises that a problem exists; but it was caught unawares by the bombing on 23 September. It emerged that the Department had no policy to deal with a bomb that affected such a large number of privately owned homes.
Eight days after the bombing—not the day after, but eight days later—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced a new policy: the Northern Ireland Housing Executive would take over responsibility for reinstating the privately owned homes. But it was too late. Not one person from the 428 privately owned homes took up that offer. Why? Because it was too late.
The law in Northern Ireland is simple. When one suffers damage because of a terrorist bomb or an illegal organisation, one must serve notice, within 10 days of the atrocity, that one intends to apply for compensation. As a result of the enterprise of Castlereagh borough council at the Belvoir activity centre and the various agencies that were working so well in the community centre at the time, the people were well organised.
The Secretary of State has complimented the borough council and the people for being so well organised and for responding so efficiently to the outrage. They had appointed their solicitors, quantity surveyors and builders, as they were told to do. Having made those commitments, and knowing that they had to serve notice of a claim within


10 days, they suddenly read in the Belfast Telegraph, nine days after the explosion, that they need not have done so at all. I see that the Minister is nodding his head—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Males): No; I was shaking my head.

Mr. Taylor: The proof is in the pudding, and not one person from the 428 privately owned houses took up the offer from the Housing Executive to fix their houses because it came too late.
Regrettably, the Government did not have a policy. They have one now and have applied it to other major bomb explosion—for example, recently at Glengormley, in the constituency of Antrim, South. Private owners there have taken the opportunity of getting the Housing Executive to repair their houses. That could not apply in Belvoir because it came too late. That is why the way to resolve the problem was to get urgent interim compensation awards made to the house owners.
Four months after the bomb, people are still living in caravans and running up large bills. I want the Minister to explain to the House and to my constituents whether those electricity bills, which are much larger than the bills that they would have received had they been in their homes, will be considered when the final compensation awards are made.
I also want the Minister to reconsider the operation of the Northern Ireland Compensation Agency. I am not criticising the staff of the agency, who have worked hard during the past three months and have had to deal with 2,500 compensation claims during that time, which is 50 per cent. of their normal work load for a year. The limited staff in the Northern Ireland compensation agency were extended to the limit because of the lack of staffing and the increase in republican terrorism in Northern Ireland. I know that that costs money, which is always a problem in public life.
If the Government are presiding over increased republican terrorism, they must provide more staffing for the Northern Ireland compensation agency. Without adequate staff it cannot respond quickly in a case such as Belvoir. Four months after the bomb people are still living in caravans. The tarpaulins that were put on their roofs on 24 September 1992 have finally been removed during the past two or three weeks. Therefore, much as we appreciate the work of the compensation agency, we hope that the Minister will increase its staff.
Finally, will the Minister remove the forensic science institution from Newtownbreda? It is the second time that we have had a bomb explosion. The people of Belvoir, Brerton crescent and the surrounding district cannot be asked to endure the possibility of a third explosion at those premises.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I am glad to have the chance to reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), and I shall try to cover all the issues that he raised, although he has left me very little time.
More than 1,000 tenants and owner-occupiers suffered damage to their homes as a result of the outrageous attack on the forensic laboratory, and it is right that the right

hon. Gentleman should be concerned that everything possible has been done to alleviate the problems that were, and are still being, faced by many of his constituents.
By that callous act, the Provisional IRA has demonstrated yet again its utter disregard for the lives and property of ordinary people. It was mostly fortuitous that nobody was killed or seriously injured. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute, not only to the two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who warned people and saved lives, but to the two local security guards inside the forensic laboratory who raised the alarm. They acted with great courage and speed, which is why we are not discussing the deaths of many people.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I visited the scene on the day after the incident and saw the destruction, pain and suffering at first hand. It is a tribute to all the people in Ulster that they continue to be so resilient in the face of such acts, not just in Ulster but elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that the Government had no policy. They have a perfectly good policy, which was created when the right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility for such matters and set out rules on criminal compensation for damage. Although they have been varied, they remain roughly unchanged.
The Newtownhreda incident was exceptional because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there were involved many Housing Executive houses and many private houses, most of which had been purchased from the Housing Executive by people in the middle to late stages of their lives. We faced a problem, and the first thing that happened on the morning after the incident was that an executive decision was taken that instant repairs would be made to private houses as well as Housing Executive houses. Clearly it would have been wrong if panes of glass and leaking roofs were not mended as an emergency action.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the Housing Executive, which took on that job. I join him in paying tribute to all the agencies—local government, Northern Ireland Office and voluntary organisations—that quickly set up shop and remained there throughout the weekend. They all did a marvellous job—from the solicitors who advised people to the volunteers who provided creche facilities for the children. Other services, including the social services, were present. People who had suffered trauma were counselled. The people charged with responsibility in such a major disaster came out of it with great credit.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that on 1 October my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Housing Executive could carry out repairs for owner-occupiers in the district in return for an assignment of compensation. That was in response to the massive amount of damage, and to give owner-occupiers the opportunity to have the same service as had been available to Housing Executive tenants who were living beside them.
It was an unusual situation as one house was a Housing Executive property and the next one was private, the next Housing Executive. After consultation we took the decision that it would be right to offer them all the same treatment. It has been suggested—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman suggested it again—that the announcement came too late for the owner-occupiers because of the statutory requirement that a notice of intention to claim compensation should be lodged within 10 days.
However, the timing of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's announcement had no bearing on the matter as it was made perfectly clear that anyone intending to have their repairs carried out by the Housing Executive had to make an application for compensation. Therefore, the claim for compensation had to be made, no matter who was to carry out the repair. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that those who had taken advice and potentially spent money on lawyers, architects and accountants would have received the same service. The money would have been repaid to them. We were taking on the offer to repair the houses and agreeing to treat them in the same way—the Housing Executive would have been repaid by the compensation agency.
None of the owners took up our offer. That was their right; it was their right to make their own decisions on who should carry out the repairs. Having taken all the advice available to them, they chose to stick with the private sector, and I do not argue with that decision. However, they cannot blame us for not having made the offer, because our offer was clearly made.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I would not want the Minister to get the impression that the policy, as it is now stated, does not work satisfactorily. Although it was not taken up in the Belvoir case, largely because people had committed themselves to builders and others, the Minister should not do away with the policy. He should publicise it and make it better known so that in other incidents—please God that there be no more—the offer can be taken up more quickly.

Mr. Mates: We were attempting to make the peculiar circumstances of that disaster match the Government's response. The right hon. Member for Strangford said that the policy has been used since, but the following bomb to which he referred largely affected commercial property and caused very little private damage. Each case is different. The Government are trying to approach each problem sympathetically and to provide a solution. The right hon. Gentleman is right—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.